Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS (NORWAY AND SWEDEN).

Mr. SMITHERS: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make representations to the Governments of Norway and Sweden with a view to the removal of the licence fee of 100 kroner (about £5 10s.) on all British commercial travellers entering those countries?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): The policy of imposing such fees is one of very old standing, and the actual amount of the fee charged has remained at the same level in both countries since long before the War. In these circumstances, I am of opinion that such representations as the hon. Member suggests would not serve any useful purpose.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman, alternatively, impose a similar tax on commercial travellers coming from Norway and Sweden?

Mr. GRAHAM: Oh, no, we could not entertain that suggestion. Representations were made in 1926, when it was proposed to increase this charge in Norway, and it was not increased at that time. I do not think we can do more.

Mr. SMITHERS: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman sticks to his Free Trade principles to the very bitter end?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why did not the Tories put this proposal into effect when they were in office?

Mr. SMITHERS: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view
of the fact that British commercial travellers entering Norway or Sweden are charged a licence fee of 100 kroner per head per month, he will consider imposing a similar revenue tax of £5 10s. on commercial travellers visiting Great Britain and Northern Ireland from those countries; and whether he can state the estimated revenue to be derived from such a tax?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): My right hon. Friend is not prepared to adopt this proposal. It is not practicable to furnish an estimate of the revenue that might be derived from such a tax.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the Financial Secretary see to it that commercial travellers from those countries have imposed upon them a tax similar to that which has been imposed upon our commercial travellers in those countries?

DUMPING, BOUNTIES AND SUBSIDIES.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received a report of the Economic Committee of the League of Nations in relation to dumping, bounties and subsidies?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The Committee is still in session, and I have accordingly not yet received any such report. If, however the right hon. Gentleman will repeat his question in a fortnight's time, it may be possible to give him some information.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: Could the House have a concise and explicit definition of dumping?

Mr. SMITHERS: rose
——

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask a supplementary question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has given a definite answer.

TARIFFS.

Sir K. WOOD: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any further replies in relation to the communication he has made to various countries suggesting a reduction of tariffs?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Since the answer on this subject which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman on the 21st April, certain communications have been received from the French Government indicating the lines on which that Government would be prepared to proceed with the proposed negotiations.

Sir K. WOOD: Did the other countries reply, and is satisfactory progress being made?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, I have referred to other replies which have so far been received; but I would remind the House that these communications are at the moment confidential.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what concessions the French Government are prepared to make?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 77.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if, in view of the general interest in the economic situation in Europe, he will give permission for a map showing the European tariff walls to be exhibited in the Tea Room?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): If the hon. and gallant Member can provide a suitable map, I shall be glad to arrange that it shall be exhibited in the Tea Room, subject to Mr. Speaker's consent.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Would not the map provided by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir C. Morrison-Bell) be suitable?

Mr. LANSBURY: Oh, yes, I am quite sure it would be suitable.

BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY (AMERICAN INTERESTS).

Mr. REMER: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now considered the report sent to him by the London Trades Council to the effect that the British Gaumont Pictures Corporation, Limited, is now controlled by American interests; and what action he proposes to take to prevent the use of the word British in the titles of foreign-controlled companies?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I can only refer the hon. Member to the replies I have already given him on this subject on 19th May and 9th June.

Mr. REMER: Have not the London Trades Council expressed their willing- ness that the report should be published, so as to remove all doubts on this matter?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes; but I have already explained to the hon. Member, I think three or four times, that that does not lie with me at all. The London Trades Council are at perfect liberty to publish their report; it is their own document.

Mr. REMER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London Trades Council desire it to be published?

Mr. GRAHAM: If that is their desire, why do not they get on with the publication of it?

Mr. DAY: Is the statement made in the question, that this company is controlled by American interests, correct?

Mr. GRAHAM: On that point, I would refer my hon. Friend to the very detailed reply which I gave some time ago, and which sets out the exact position of these companies.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Do not many of these companies, owing to the fact that they are American-controlled, disparage the use of British films?

BUTTER AND MARGARINE.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the imports of butter from Australia and from Soviet Russia, respectively, during the first five months of 1931; and whether any bounty is paid in either country on such exports?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: During the five months ended 31st May, 1931, the quantity of butter imported into the United Kingdom from Australia and the Soviet Union amounted to 737,448 cwts, and 32,270 cwts. respectively. There is no direct Government bounty on the export of butter from Australia, but the producers impose a voluntary levy on themselves, out of the proceeds of which a bounty is paid on all butter exported. In Soviet Russia all foreign trade is a Government monopoly, and it is impossible to say what kind and degree of encouragement that Government may accord to the export of any one particular commodity.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the tick trade a dumping trade?

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of the exports of British margarine during the first five months of 1931 compared with the same period of 1930, and the countries to which such exports have been consigned?

Mr. GRAHAM: As the answer is in tabular form, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows the total domestic exports of margarine from the United Kingdom, registered during the five months ended 31st May, 1930 and 1931, distinguishing the principal countries to which consigned.

——
January-May.


1930.
1931.



Cwts.
Cwts.


Total Exports
13,866
142,888


Of which consigned to:




Soviet Union (Russia)
—
129,506


China (exclusive of Hong Kong, Macao and leased territories).
1,880
1,933


Channel Islands
3,882
3,478


Gibraltar
948
796


Malta and Gozo
217
432


Straits Settlements and Dependencies (including Labuan).
333
403


Hong Kong
362
406


Canada
402
—


Jamaica and Dependencies
1,780
2,014


Bermudas
577
659


Other countries
3,485
3,261

Commander BELLAIRS: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the extent of the advances given by British firms for the import of £2,000,000 worth of Soviet Russian butter this year and as to the long term and/or other credits given for the export of margarine to Russia?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not in a position to make any statement as to what advances have been made against imports of Russian butter nor as to the terms on which margarine has been exported to the Soviet Union. With regard, however, to the figure of £2,000,000 mentioned I would point out that up to May im-
ports of Russian butter this year have been less in value than last year when the total value of the imports during the 12 months was just over £1,000,000, only.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the Russian butter comes in in the summer months?

Mr. WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Owen), who has just returned from Russia, that butter is not now an article of diet of the Russian people?

HOME CANNING INDUSTRY (FRUIT AND VEGETABLES).

Mr. R. S. YOUNG: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the approximate output of the home canning industry for fduit and vegetables, respectively, for the years 1928 and 1930?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries that returns received from canners in response to a recent questionnaire indicate that the commercial output of canned fruit and vegetables in this country was approximately 5,700,000 cans of fruit and 1,500,000 cans of vegetables in 1928, the corresponding figures for 1930 being 18,700,000 and 15,750,000 respectively.

Mr. YOUNG: Is this a protected industry?

Mr. GRAHAM: It is not, so far as I know.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that only British canned goods are supplied to His Majesty's Forces?

RUSSIA.

Mr. WHITE: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how British exports to Russia and British imports from Russia during the first five months of the current year compare with the corresponding exports and imports of the years 1929 and 1930; and if, where possible, he will give detailed figures in respect of the more important categories of goods?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As the answer is long and involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The declared value of merchandise imported into and exported from the United Kingdom in trade with the Soviet Union registered during the first five months of 1929 and 1930 was as follows:


——
January to May.


1929.
1930.



£
£


Total Imports consigned from the Soviet Union.
7,075,807
8,006,336


Exports consigned to the Soviet Union—Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom.
1,481,043
1,938,712


Imported merchandise
893,542
1,187,032

I am not yet in a position to state the figures for the corresponding period of this year, but I will send them to the hon. Member as soon as they are available.

Details of the trade during these periods are not readily available, but the hon. Member will find the particulars in respect of some of the more important items in the issue of the

As stated in the issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" for May, 1931, the declared value of the imports into and exports from the United Kingdom of (a) stockings and hose of artificial silk, or of which the chief value is artificial silk, and (b) all other descriptions of artificial silk manufactures, excluding yarn, apparel and embroidery, registered during the five months ended 31st May, 1929, 1930 and 1931, was as follows:—

——
Stockings and hose of artificial silk, or of which the chief value is artificial silk.
All other descriptions of artificial silk manufactures, excluding yarn, apparel and embroidery.


Total Imports:



£
£


January to May.







1929
…
…
…
305,879
3,225,822


1930
…
…
…
578,391
2,998,613


1931
…
…
…
639,750
3,263,274


Exports of domestic manufacture:







January to May.







1929
…
…
…
270,553
2,774,290


1930
…
…
…
224,196
2,281,475


1931
…
…
…
138,017
1,224,335


Exports of imported merchandise:







January to May.







1929
…
…
…
15,999
233,127


1930
…
…
…
27,414
402,337


1931
…
…
…
26,227
220,726

"Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" for May, 1931.

Detailed particulars of the trade of the United Kingdom with the Soviet Union during the year 1929 are contained on pages 124 to 129 of Volume IV of the "Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Countries—1929." Statements showing the principal commodities imported and exported in the trade with the Soviet Union during the year 1930 were furnished in answer to questions by the noble Member for East Norfolk on the 3rd March, and the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe on the 7th May, copies of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

ARTIFICIAL SILK.

Mr. WHITE: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the values of our imports and exports, respectively, of artificial silk hosiery and stockings, and of all other artificial silk manufactures during the first five months of 1929, 1930, and 1931?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to place before the House his proposals for preventing any further decline in the activities of the iron and steel trade in this country and the resultant increase in unemployment?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I think the hon. and gallant Member is aware that I have more than once promised to make a statement on the subject of this and other industries on the occasion of the Board of Trade Vote.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the recommendations which have been made to him from different quarters involve legislation; and how can we discuss those matters on an administrative Vote?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is very far from being the case; many of the proposals do not involve legislation at all.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We are just as anxious as the right hon. Gentlemen to have a debate on the subject. Will he give an undertaking that it shall be debated on an occasion when the whole issue can be properly treated?

Mr. GRAHAM: If, by "the whole issue," the right hon. Gentleman means the tariff issue, which is an important matter in connection with this trade, that, of course, could not be discussed upon a Board of Trade or any other Vote in this House. That, however, does not lie with me; it is a question of the Rules of the House.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If we are to have a discussion upon the recommendations and policy with regard to iron and steel, does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it is quite ineffective to have one while excluding the question of tariffs; and will he represent to the Prime Minister that, in order to get an effective discussion such as he and we require, we must have a day when the whole subject can be properly debated?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have no power to promise any Parliamentary time at all for this subject other than the time available within the limits of the Board of Trade Vote.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Arising out of the original answer, may I ask whether, in
view of the serious condition of this industry and of other industries, the Government cannot expedite the occasion when they will make some statement to this House on a plan to deal with this problem, so that the Government may have the authority of the House to proceed energetically with it?

Mr. GRAHAM: The plans, apart from legislation, I can summarise on the occasion of the Board of Trade Vote, and hon. Members on the other side can put that down almost immediately; it does not lie with us.

Major THOMAS: Are we to under-stand that the proposals of the trade union concerned have been turned down by the Government?

Mr. GRAHAM: The hon. and gallant Member would be wrong in making that assumption.

Mr. SMITH-CARINGTON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many blast furnaces were in operation in May, 1929, 1930, and 1931, respectively?

Mr. GRAHAM: As reported by the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers the numbers of furnaces in blast at the end of May, 1929, 1930, and 1931 were 159, 141, and 80, respectively.

Major COLVILLE: Does not that indicate that it would be wise for the Government to give a day for the discussion of the iron and steel industry?

IMPORTED TINNED FOODSTUFFS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to require all foreign tinned provisions to have stamped on the lid of the tin the name of the country of origin in order to obviate the ease with which paper labels are washed off?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: A general requirement of this character could only be imposed by an Order-in-Council under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, and no application for such an Order has been made by the parties interested. If the suggestion is that imported tinned foodstuffs are being sold under a British name or trade mark without a qualifying indication of origin and the hon. and gallant Member cares to furnish me with particulars of cases which he has in mind, I shall be glad to arrange for the matter to be investigated.

IMPORTED JOINERY.

Commander BELLAIRS: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will appoint a departmental committee to consider the present operation of the system by which imports of joinery are regulated by an unofficial committee with the professed object of seeing that the goods are not produced under unfair labour conditions, and to examine whether it attains that object in a proper manner?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am informed that the unofficial committee to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was set up in pursuance of an agreement between the National Federation of Building Trade Employers and the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers 10 years ago, and I am aware of no circumstances which would appear to call for the investigation of this voluntary arrangement.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the case of the four Soviet companies importing joinery into this country, there was no sort of inquiry whatever, but the committee simply took the assurance from the Russian companies?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not familiar with that point. The original question is confined to the point whether there should be investigation.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of joinery come into the country under the assurance that fair wages are given?

Mr. MACLEAN: Since the investigation committee in this industry is composed of employers and trade union representatives, does not the fault lie equally with the employers for whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks?

EXPORT CREDITS (RUSSIAN SHIPS).

Major GLYN: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have now obtained all the necessary information to enable a decision to be taken concerning the proposal to provide credit facilities to enable the Soviet Government to construct ships in British shipyards for subsequent employment as merchant vessels under the Russian flag;
and, since the matter was being considered as a matter of urgency early this month, if he can state what is the decision of the Government?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: This matter is still under consideration.

Major GLYN: Have any representations been made to the Department by shipbuilding firms or shipowners?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, I have received a deputation of ship builders, and we have had numerous communications in writing from shipowners.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman also received representations from the workmen affected and that they are the most important here? There are about 25 per cent. in the shipbuilding and engineering industry unemployed, and this would be the means of finding employment for them.

Mr. GRAHAM: I have certainly received representations from the trade unions. Every point put forward by all deputations must be considered before a decision is reached.

COMMERCIAL TREATIES.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider publishing, as a White Paper, an account of the commercial treaties in force between Great Britain and the other countries of the world, between the various British Dominions, and the various Dominions and foreign countries?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The Stationery Office publish annually a statement, a copy of which is being sent to the hon. and gallant Member, which gives particulars of the commercial treaties concluded with foreign countries by this country and by the Dominions. As each of these treaties is published either separately, or in the Handbook of Commercial Treaties, I do not think that the labour involved in drawing up an account of them would be justified. The commercial agreements between the Dominions are few in number and the texts are published in the Dominions concerned.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 61.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can give an assurance
that exhibitors in the textile industries section of the British Industries Fair will not, under the new arrangements for the organisation of this section of the fair, be involved in a greater expense than last year for space at the exhibition and exhibition stands?

The SECRETARY to the OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gillett): The charge for space in the textile section at the British Industries Fair in 1932 will be the same as that charged for all other sections of the London Fair. The cost for exhibition stands to exhibitors in the textile section at the 1932 fair will not exceed that charged in the cotton textile section held at the White City this year.

Mr. ALBERY: 62.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that the programme of the British Industries Fair was printed on paper made abroad; and if he will see that all such materials so used in future are British made?

Mr. GILLETT: I am unable to identify the particular publication to which the hon. Member refers, but as far as I am aware no literature issued by my Department, in connection with the British Industries Fair, is printed on foreign paper.

Mr. O'CONNOR: If the Government really believe in free imports, why should it not be printed on foreign paper?

Mr. GILLETT: I did not give that as a reason; I only made a statement.

Mr. KELLY: 63.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what has been the arrangement hitherto with respect to the allocation of space at the textile section of the British Industries Fair; and what changes are proposed for next year in respect of this allocation?

Mr. GILLETT: Exhibitors in the textile section of the British Industries Fair have hitherto been able to select their sites from prepared plans, applications being dealt with in rotation. The same procedure is being adopted in respect of the 1932 fair.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask whether the exhibition department intend to take control of this matter? Why are they not taking control?

Mr. GILLETT: If the hon. Member will give me notice of that question, I will give him a reasoned reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

DISTRESSED AREAS (NEW INDUSTRIES).

Sir K. WOOD: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a statement concerning the progress which has been made in establishing new industries in the distressed areas for the purpose of mitigating unemployment?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: This is a matter which can best be dealt with on the occasion of the Board of Trade Vote.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would make for more concise and explicit statement if he summarised exactly what has been done? If I put down a question, will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer that can be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT showing exactly what has been done in the matter?

Mr. GRAHAM: It is very difficult to summarise a matter of this kind, which changes from day to day as negotiations proceed. By far the better method is to await the Board of Trade Vote.

Sir K WOOD: Surely it is not difficult to summarise what has been accomplished?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Could not the right hon. Gentleman just say "Nothing", and be quite truthful?

SHALE OIL INDUSTRY.

Major COLVILLE: 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that over 2,000 workers in the shale oil industry in Scotland are threatened with loss of employment owing to the permanent closing down of plant; and if he has any proposals to assist this industry?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I have received representations concerning the present position in the shale oil industry in Scotland. The whole position is being explored in discussions with representatives of both employers and workpeople to enable the Government to give proper consideration to the representations.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS (GRANTS).

Sir BASIL PETO: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour what change has been made in the policy of granting assistance to schemes put before the Unemployment Grants Committee for new civic buildings; whether she is aware that schemes prepared in every respect according to the conditions in leaflet U.G.C. 26, and in the Unemployment Grants Committee's most recent-circular of March last by a number of council and municipal authorities have recently been refused; and whether she proposes to take any steps to make good the expense to which these authorities have been placed in the preparation of schemes now found to be abortive?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): As stated by my right hon. Friend on 11th June last, further applications for grants in respect of municipal offices will no longer be entertained by the Unemployment Grants Committee. This does not affect applications already before the committee, which are being dealt with under the arrangements previously in force.

Sir B. PETO: Is the hon. Member aware that at a recent meeting of the committee nine such applications were received from municipalities and only one was passed? May I also ask whether he is going to do anything to meet the very heavy expenses thrown upon county councils and municipalities in preparing plans according to their own specifications, which they had every reason to suppose would be accepted?

Mr. LAWSON: I am afraid that the Department cannot accept financial responsibility for plans which do not meet the requirements of the Act.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. P. OLIVER: 65.
(for Mr. Mander) asked the Minister of Labour if she will introduce legislation to deal with cases where workmen have been refused unemployment benefit owing to their refusal to accept employment at rates below the standard trade rate?

Mr. LAWSON: The Unemployment Insurance Acts already include safeguards for such cases in Section 5 (2) (ii) of the Unemployment Insurance
Act of 1927, and Section 4 (2) of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1930. Cases in which the loss of employment is by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute are the subject of special provisions.

Mr. McSHANE: Is my hon. Friend aware that the courts of referees are disallowing benefit to men for not working seven days a week, Sundays included, 82 hours a week, and how can it be said that there is ample protection when there is such a state of affairs as that?

Mr. LAWSON: No, I am not aware of that fact.

Mr. BROCKWAY: In view of the fact that a Bill is being introduced to deal with alleged abuses committed by the unemployed, is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to urge the introduction of legislation to deal with the abuses from which the unemployed are suffering?

Oral Answers to Questions — ASIATIC SEAMEN.

Mr. McGOVERN: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of Asiatic seamen employed on British ships on 1st May, 1931, and the average number of hours worked and the average wages paid?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As the answer includes a table of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The latest available information as to the numbers of Asiatics employed in British ships was given on the 18th June in an answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend. I am not able to give any figures for the average hours worked by Asiatic seamen as these vary according to circumstances but I understand that the hours worked by Asiatic seamen employed on European agreements are generally the same as those worked by white seamen. The wages paid to Asiatic seamen vary according to circumstances and no average figure can be given. The following table, which is based on information obtained from the agreements of particular ships, gives some indication of the rates generally paid:

Monthly Wages.


Rating.
Asiatics on European Agreements.
Asiatics on Agreements opened at ports in Asia.




Bombay Lascars.
Calcutta Lascars.
Chinese.




£
s.
Rupees.
Rupees.
Dollars.


Quartermaster (Lascar sea-cunny)
…
9
10
60
55
—


Sailor
…
9
0
30–32
25
28


Greaser (Lascar Paniwallah)
…
10
0
36–44
26
34


Fireman
…
9
10
27–30
23
31–34½


Assistant Steward or General Servant
…
8
5
34–50
30
28

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RECRUITING.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War what has been the result of the Government's efforts to obtain recruits for the regular Army; how does the number of recruits obtained during the present year compare with the number obtained during the corresponding period last year; and what was the strength of the Army at Home on the latest ascertainable date this year and the corresponding date last year?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): From the beginning of the year until 14th June, 18,334 recruits for the Regular Army had been finally approved, compared with 12,635 during the same period last year. The total strength of other ranks of the Regular Army at home on 1st June, 1931, was 101,248 compared with 99,223 on the same date last year.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: Is the Army up to establishment?

Mr. SHAW: The numbers are not yet up to what is generally called the standard, which is not necessarily a minimum.

ALDERSHOT TATTOO.

Mr. DAY: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of persons who attended the Aldershot Tattoo (1931) as visitors, and the amount of money taken in admissions or for car park reservations?

Mr. SHAW: The approximate number of persons who attended the Aldershot Tattoo, including the night rehearsal, was
322,000, and the approximate amount received from admissions and from the car park was £64,000.

Mr. DAY: Is this an increase on the previous year?

Mr. SHAW: I think it is a considerable increase, but I would not vouch for the figures, not having the figures for last year in my possession.

WAR GRAVES, FRANCE AND BELGIUM.

Captain P. MAC DONALD: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is now able to state the result of his inquiries regarding the violation of war graves in France and Belgium?

Mr. ISAACS: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he has now completed his inquiry into the question of the violation of British war graves; and, if so, can he give the House any information on the subject?

Mr. MILLS: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he has now completed his investigations into the question of the violation of war graves on the Continent and the exhuming of bodies of British soldiers and taking them to England for re-burial?

Mr. SHAW: As a result of the special inquiry which has been and is still being carried out, no support has been discovered for the allegations that were made. Those allegations would involve the disinterment of bodies at night-time, the opening and restoring of carefully turfed graves, and the embarkation and smuggling of the bodies from the Belgian coast into this country. Frankly, it seems incredible that a carefully tended grave could be opened up and restored again under cover of darkness so skilfully as
to avoid detection. The investigation shows that it almost inconceivable that the alleged proceedings could escape notice at any stage. I think it safe to say that the story may be dismissed and its publication is all the more discreditable in view of the pain that it could not fail to revive in so many thousands of cases.

Captain MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to give wide publicity to this statement?

Mr. SHAW: I do not want to take any further steps than I have done. Either this paper published this statement in good faith or as a piece of sensationalism. If it published it in good faith, I think it did not take into account the difficulties that would arise in carrying out what was alleged had been carried out. If it was published for purposes of sensationalism, I am not prepared to go any further in making the sensation more public.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SANATORIA (JUVENILE PATIENTS).

Mr. McGOVERN: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of children under 18 years of age who are in Robroyston Sanatorium, Mearnskirk Sanatorium and Bellfield Sanatorium; and in how many cases the fathers are unemployed?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I am informed that the numbers of patients under 18 years in Robroyston Hospital, Mearnskirk Hospital and Bellfield Sanatorium are 144, 443 and 44 respectively. I regret that the information asked in the latter part of the question is not available.

Mr. McGOVERN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any means of getting that information?

Mr. ADAMSON: If the hon. Gentleman will make the suggestion to get the information, I shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. McGOVERN: As I understand it, it is part of the right hon. Gentleman's duty to get the information. It is not for me.

HOUSING.

Mr. McGOVERN: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of tenants who were originally removed from slum areas and rehoused by the Glasgow Corporation from 1st May, 1920, to 1st May, 1931; and how many have had to leave, or been evicted, due to inability to pay their rent?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): The number of tenants removed from slum areas and rehoused by the Glasgow Corporation from 1st May, 1920, to 1st May, 1931, is 5,872, and the number of tenants who have had to leave or have been evicted after the institution of court proceedings for non-payment of rent is 323.

Mr. McGOVERN: In view of the fact that a number of these people are unemployed and cannot afford to pay the rent, can the Minister make any suggestion as to why they are not given a proper amount to enable them to pay the rent?

Mr. WESTWOOD: Any questions of the amount being granted to tenants to pay their rent will, if they come within the control of the Public Assistance Committee of Glasgow, be a matter for the Public Assistance Committee.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland stated that 323 tenants had been evicted because they were not able to pay the rent, and I would like to know how many tenants have left houses because they were unable to pay the rent without having been evicted?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I cannot say without notice. I have not received notice of that particular question. If I had, I would have tried to obtain the information.

Major ELLIOT: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers of new State-assisted houses under construction in all schemes in the months of January, February, March, April, May, and June, respectively, for the years 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, and 1931?

Mr. WESTWOOD: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I propose, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Housing—Scotland.


Number of new State-assisted Houses under construction in all schemes at the end of certain months.


Year.
January.
February.
March.
April.
May.
June.


1927
…
20,807
20,503
20,278
20,162
12,359
19,343


1928
…
18,019
18,162
18,044
18,405
18,380
18,079


1929
…
15,386
15,001
14,997
14,826
14,719
14,423


1930
…
10,059
10,151
10,539
10,720
10,580
10,835


1931
…
8,703
8,791
9,360
10,146
10,508
not available.

Miss LEE: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of condemned houses in Scotland which are at present occupied; and what percentage of these will be replaced by slum-clearance houses within six months, a year, two years, and three years, respectively?

Mr. WESTWOOD: Complete figures of the number of unfit houses in Scotland are not yet available as a number of local authorities have not yet submitted the statement required by Subsection (2) of Section 22 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930. According to the statements that have been submitted by 180 local authorities, the number of houses estimated to be required to replace unfit houses is 37,846, and the number of houses likely to be provided by these local authorities within three years to replace unfit houses is 24,321. I am unable to state what percentage of the unfit houses will be replaced by these new houses within the periods mentioned in the question; this will depend upon the rate of progress made by the local authorities during these periods in carrying out their three years' programme.

Miss LEE: Do I understand that even after three years there will be a large number of the families at present living in condemned houses still living in those condemned houses, or, at least, for whom no alternative provision will have been made?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I hope that such will not be the case. All that I have done is to give the answer to the question put here as to the programme of these authorities, but we are doing everything possible to stimulate the
activities of these authorities with a view to providing, in place of every insanitary house, a decent dwelling in which the people can live.

Miss LEE: If, when all the returns from the local authorities are in, the Government discover that they are still making inadequate provision, will any supplementary national effort be made in order to get decent houses for these people?

Miss LEE: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of men, women and children in Scotland who are at present living in condemned houses?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I regret that I am unable to supply the information asked for by my hon. Friend as the statements submitted by local authorities in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, do not give such particulars. Information as to the number of persons occupying houses to be demolished or closed is furnished to the Department of Health for Scotland only when local authorities are about to proceed to deal with the particular houses scheduled for demolition or closure.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Is the Scottish Office prepared to urge upon the Government the introduction of a national housing scheme to deal with this problem?

Mr. WESTWOOD: That matter does not arise out of this particular question.

FEUS AND GROUND RENTS.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can state approximately the total sum paid in feus and other ground rents within the municipal area of Glasgow?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I regret that the desired information is not available.

Mr. HARDIE: As this information is in the possession of the Assessor of the City of Glasgow, how is it that the Scottish Department have no right to get the information? I wish to press the question. Will the night hon. Gentleman now give a promise to press the City Assessor's Office in Glasgow for the information?

MORAY FIRTH (FOREIGN TRAWLERS).

Major WOOD: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has given further consideration to the question of allowing foreign trawlers to fish in the Moray Firth; and whether he is now in a position to say what action has been taken or is proposed by the Government?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As was stated in the Debate on the Scottish Estimates on the 3rd June, the Moray Firth question is the subject of discussions with the other Departments concerned. It is a difficult and complicated problem, as the hon. and gallant Member realises, but the efforts to find a solution of the difficulties are proceeding without any avoidable delay.

Major WOOD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the fishermen some assurance that something is actually being done besides merely having the matter considered?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not all this trouble in the Moray Firth arising from the fact that Lord Grey of Fallodon, the great Foreign Minister of the Liberals, left the Moray Firth open?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the cause of the delay?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood) that efforts to find a solution of the difficulty are proceeding without any avoidable delay.

Major WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea when he will be able to make a definite state-
ment as to what he proposes to do? May I have an answer to that question?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: As English trawlers——[Interruption.]

Major WOOD: Mr. Speaker, may I not have an answer to my question?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: On a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, seeing that supplementary questions have been put both from the Liberal benches and the Socialist benches, and that this matter concerns British trawlers, if I may have an opportunity of putting a question?

Mr. SPEAKER: We have already had four or five supplementary questions upon this matter.

Major WOOD: We have had no answer. May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Ramsay.

PIERS, WESTERN ISLANDS.

Mr. RAMSAY: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the copy sent to him of the resolution passed by the Glasgow associations of Inverness-shire, Skye, Lewis and Harris, Uist and Barra, Mull and Iona, Jura, Ross and Cromarty, Oban and Lorne, and Islay and Mid Argyll, at the annual meeting of the Highlanders' Institute, calling upon the Government to modernise and properly repair the piers in the Western Islands; and, if so, will he state, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to replies which I have recently given on this subject and in particular to my replies of the 4th May and 18th June to the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), in which I indicated that legislation will be required before this matter can be comprehensively dealt with, and that I hope before long to communicate with the local authorities concerned.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Piers, and does he propose to take any action upon that report, if he has received it?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already intimated that I have received the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Piers.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any action or not?

Mr. ADAMSON: I will consider that matter in due course.

Mr. RAMSAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that boats find great difficulty in approaching the piers on account of their primitive nature and also on account of the absence of breakwaters, and will he take all those points into consideration and do something?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am taking all those points into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

CLIPSTONE COLLIERY, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that men employed at Clipstone Colliery, Nottinghamshire, on No. 2 conveyor face, whose shift began at 10.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 26th May, did not leave work till 12 o'clock on the following day, and the six charge men did not leave till 2.20 p.m. on that day; and will he inquire into and state the reasons why those long hours underground were worked?

Mr. SHINWELL: I have had this matter investigated, and it appears that my hon. Friend has been misinformed. On the shift in question, 14 conveyor men were detained below ground after the end of the shift owing to falls on the level. The register of the times of descent and ascent shows that seven of these men ascended at 8 a.m., and the other seven, including the chargemen, at 8.40 a.m. on the 27th May.

Mr. BROWN: Is the hon. Member aware that the information in the question was given to me by one of the men actually engaged for this period on this day, and will he have further inquiries made into the matter as this is a constant practice at this colliery?

Mr. SHINWELL: All that I can say to my hon. Friend is that I have made very careful investigations, and, in accordance with the records, that is not correct.

Mr. BROWN: Will the hon. Member have the records more carefully examined than has been done?

Mr. SHINWELL: The only care that we can exercise is to examine them closely.

Mr. WINTERTON: Is the hon. Member aware that in many collieries there is overtime, and will he also——

Mr. SPEAKER: The question only deals with one colliery.

Mr. WINTERTON: I desire to ask a question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question on the Order Paper only deals with one colliery.

IMPORTS.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 40.
asked the Secretary for Mines what have been the imports of coal and anthracite into the United Kingdom, month by month, during 1931; and how much of this was of Russian origin?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am advised that no foreign coal has been imported into this country during the current year.

ACCIDENTS.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 41.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many fatal accidents occurred in coal mines in Great Britain during the first three months of 1931, as compared with the first three months of 1929?

Mr. SHINWELL: During the first quarter of 1931, 226 persons were killed by accidents in and about mines under the Coal Mines Act, as compared with 274 during the first quarter of 1929.

Mr. LAWTHER: Will my hon. Friend, having regard to the fact that the figures show fewer lives lost with a decrease in hours, formulate his policy on similar lines of shorter hours?

WORKING HOURS.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 42.
asked the Secretary for Mines what is the present position of the negotiations as to hours of work in the coal-mining industry?

Mr. SHINWELL: I cannot at the moment add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 9th June, except to say that the negotiations are still proceeding, and that a statement will be made at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EXHIBITION, PARIS.

Viscount ELMLEY: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to what extent are the self-governing Dominions participating in the present Colonial Exhibition at Paris?

The SECRETARY of STATE, for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): His Majesty's Governments in Canada and the Union of South Africa are participating in the Intelligence Section adjoining the main exhibition, and information regarding New Zealand and Newfoundland has also been made available.

Viscount ELMLEY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman's Department encourage the self-governing Dominions to do more than that for this exhibition?

Mr. THOMAS: The Dominions are the best judges of their own financial interests.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether it has yet been decided in what month in 1932 the postponed Imperial Conference should be held?

Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONVERSATIONS WITH FOREIGN MINISTERS.

Mr. DAY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any further statement as to the recent visit to Great Britain of the German Chancellor and the German Foreign Minister?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I fear I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to similar questions addressed to me on this subject by my hon. Friends the Members for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) and East Leicester (Mr. Wise) on 10th June last.

Mr. DAY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement with reference to his discussions with Mr. Andrew Mellon, the Secretary to the United States Treasury?

The PRIME MINISTER: The conversations I had with Mr. Mellon were in no sense official and therefore I have nothing to report.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.

Major COLFOX: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give, in tabular or other form, a full statement of all the sums given, lent, or guaranteed by His Majesty's Government for the benefit of agriculturists in foreign and Empire countries during the last few years?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As the reply contains a large number of figures, I propose, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major COLFOX: Seeing that there are a large number of figures concerned, do the Government consider that this is the best way of helping home agriculture?

Following are the figures:

I am not aware of any provision made by His Majesty's Government for the benefit of agriculturists in foreign countries during the past few years, but as the House has already been informed His Majesty's Government propose to participate with other Governments in the International Mortgage Credit Company, which would involve an advance by His Majesty's Government of £120,000 for the Reserve Fund of that institution.

As regards Empire countries, the following are the sums given, lent or guaranteed by His Majesty's Government during the six years ended 31st March, 1931.

I.—UNITED KINGDOM.

1. Expenditure on agricultural services by Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and Department of Agriculture, Scotland, including expenditure out of grants from the Development Fund: £17,488,000 (including £38,000 for loans).
2. Beet-sugar subsidy: £21,685,000.
3. Loans from the Local Loans Fund under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923: £2,700,000.
4. Loan of £650,000 free of interest for 60 years made under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, to the Agricultural
223
Mortgage Corporation formed for the purpose of granting long term loans on mortgage of agricultural land, and a non-repayable grant of £62,600 towards the cost of procuring the underwriting of £5,000,000 debentures issued by the corporation. Under the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, a loan not exceeding £125,000 is authorised to be made to a similar corporation in Scotland together with a non-repayable grant of £10,000.
5. Grants under the Agricultural Rates Acts, 1896, 1923, and 1929, and the equivalent of these grants included in the Exchequer Grant payable under the Local Government Act, 1929, and the corresponding Scottish Acts: £41,250,000.

II.—DOMINIONS AND COLONIES.

1. Empire Settlement Act, 1922.—(i) Assistance to migrants from the United Kingdom to enable them to undertake farming in Canada and Southern Rhodesia:—





£


Free grants
…
…
19,000


Loans
…
…
825,000

(ii) Non-recoverable contributions to His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia towards expenditure on land settlement schemes and on other schemes primarily for the benefit of agriculturists or the development of agriculture:




£


Land settlement
…
776,000


Other development
…
546,000

2. Colonial Development Act, 1929.—As shown by the detailed schedules with the First and Second Interim Reports of the Colonial Development Advisory Committee (Command 3540 and 3876), the total amount of assistance from the Colonial Development Fund (to be spread over several years) sanctioned up to 31st March, 1931, was £2,636,569 (loans £979,402: free grants £1,657,167), of which £487,000 was issued in respect of the period to 31st March, 1931. The territories concerned are primarily agricultural, and although it is not possible to state how much of the assistance sanctioned is for the benefit of agriculturists, it may be taken that the greater part is directly or indirectly for the benefit of agriculturists or the development of agriculture.

3. Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, 1926.—Guarantees have been given of the interest and principal of a loan of £4,475,000 raised by Palestine and a loan of £2,070,000 raised by Tanganyika. In addition, sanction was given up to 31st March, 1931, for expenditure to the amount of £3,070,735, in the case of Tanganyika and £3,206,404 in the case of Nyasaland, to be met from loans* to be raised in due course and guaranteed under the Act. The general purposes for which the guaranteed loans are to be used are set out in the Schedules to the Act, and although it is not possible to state how much of the loans is for the benefit of agriculturists, the remarks under "Colonial Development Act, 1929" above apply here also.

4. Special free grants or loans to Colonies etc. and Institutions, from moneys voted by Parliament, for assistance to agriculturalists or the development of agricultural resources.

£


Dominica
49,500


Swaziland
55,000


Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad (in addition to grants from the Empire Marketing Fund under III, 1. below)
20,000

III.—PARTLY UNITED KINGDOM AND PARTLY DOMINIONS AND COLONIES.

1. Entire Marketing Fund.—Free grants, mainly for the benefit of agriculturalists in the Dominions and Colonies, except as regards £261,000 for home marketing and foreground publicity: £2,472,000.

2. Trade Facilities Acts, 1921–1926.—Guarantees related to agricultural purposes given from 1st April, 1925, to expiry of the Acts on 31st March, 1927.

£


United Kingdom
…
1,430,000


Dominions and Colonies
…
90,000


* In respect of the interest charges on these loans, free grants from the Colonial Development Fund to the amount of £583,000 have been sanctioned and are included in the figures under "Colonial Development Act, 1929."

DRAINAGE WORKS.

Mr. ALBERY: 70.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that local authorities when laying drains through private property frequently do this when grow-
ing crops are in the ground; and will he issue a general circular to local authorities urging that such work should be undertaken, whenever possible, at a more suitable period of the year, both for the convenience of the owner of the land and with a view to avoiding unnecessary claims for damage from public funds?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): My right hon. Friend has no information that the facts are as stated, but, if the hon. Member will furnish him with particulars of specific cases, be will consider the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX AND ESTATE DUTIES.

Mr. ALBERY: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue instructions that notices containing threats should not be sent out to Income Tax payers in cases where reasonable time has not been allowed for preparing accounts?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the hon. Member has in mind a particular case in which he thinks that there is ground for complaint, and will send me particulars, I will have inquiry made.

Mr. ALBERY: Is the Financial Secretary not aware that taxpayers are being threatened with assessments, without any claims for exemption, unless they provide accounts in circumstances with which it is not possible to comply?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not aware of that fact, but, if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of eases, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. P. OLIVER: 48.
(for Mr. Mander) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent is has been the practice in the past for the Inland Revenue to accept stocks and shares in settlement of Income Tax and Estate Duties owing, and the total amount of the sums so dealt with since 1920?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Where the circumstances make such a course unavoidable the Commissioners of Inland Revenue accept stocks or shares in settlement of Income Tax liabilities, e.g., in cases where the income chargeable to tax has been paid in stocks or shares or where shares which are not presently
realisable are the only assets available to meet a liability to tax. As regards Estate Duty, the Commissioners do not accept stocks or shares except certain Government stocks which by their terms of issue are required to be accepted in certain circumstances. The nominal value of shares so accepted since 1920 in respect of Income Tax is approximately £635,000.

Mr. SANDHAM: Are we to understand that this is a further piece of information in regard to the inevitable collapse of capitalism?

Oral Answers to Questions — CUSTOMS SEIZURES (DISPOSAL).

Captain BOURNE: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what means, whether by advertisement or otherwise, are taken by the Customs authorities to bring to the notice of the public sales by auction of goods confiscated for breach of Customs regulations?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Forthcoming sales by auction of goods confiscated by the Customs are brought to the notice of the public by means of various forms of advertisement, including posters which are exhibited at Custom Houses and other Customs buildings.

Captain BOURNE: Can the hon. Member say whether any advertisements are inserted in the Press?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: Yes, they are.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the report of the Royal Commission set up to investigate the conditions in the Civil Service will be available?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen) on 2nd June.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Will this House have an opportunity of discussing the report before the Government put into operation any of its recommendations?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member must address that question to the Prime Minister and not to me.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Member agree to make no further cuts in Civil Service emoluments until the report has been received and considered?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The report is due in July and the question of any further change in bonus does not arise for several months.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADA (DEPORTATIONS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has now received a reply to his representations to His Majesty s Government in Canada in respect of the deportations to this country during recent months?

Mr. THOMAS: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member in reply to questions on this subject which he addressed to me on the 21st April last.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that this practice of deporting British subjects from Canada to England has now ceased?

Mr. THOMAS: I cannot say that it has ceased, because, curiously enough, I believe, for the first time almost in the history of this country, there have been more people arriving in this country from the Dominions than migrants. That explains much, but the hon. Member will know perfectly well that it is a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the Dominion itself. I have, however, made representations.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (CULTURAL CLASSES).

Brigadier-General MAKINS: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the policy of certain county councils in sanctioning public assistance for evening classes of a cultural rather than an educational character, which are being organised for adults by voluntary societies; whether official approval is given to the contribution to such classes of five-sixths of the cost from public
funds; and what generally is the policy of his Department on this subject?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): The Board's regulations contemplate assistance being given to evening courses of a general or cultural character as well as those of a vocational type, and the Board also stress the importance of co-operation in this work between the local education authorities and voluntary organisations. Subject to the observance of the regulations it is the Board's policy to leave to the local authorities the greatest possible discretion as to the precise arrangements to be made, and the amount of assistance to be given.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (MOTORING OFFENCES, LONDON).

Mr. REMER: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons driving motor vehicles were prosecuted during the first four months of 1931 for exceeding the speed limit when driving along Constitution Hill and between Hyde Park Corner and the Marble Arch (each carriage drive), respectively?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): During the first four months of this year there were 198 prosecutions for exceeding the speed limit on East Carriage Road, between Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner, and 185 for exceeding it on Constitution Hill.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Member say how many warnings were issued to motorists for exceeding the limit in this locality?

Mr. SHORT: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY CHARGES (NORTHEASTERN AREA).

Mr. LAWTHER: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport the cost per unit for power and lighting, respectively, sold by the Newcastle Electric Supply Company, Limited, the Cleveland and South Durham Electric Supply Company, Limited, South Shields Corporation, Darlington Corporation, and Sunderland Corporation.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Information showing the cost per unit of lighting supplies only is not obtainable.
The average revenue received per unit of electricity sold during the year 1929–30, for (a) lighting and domestic purposes and (b) industrial power purposes respectively is shown in the following table:


undertaker.
Lighting and Domestic Supplies.
Industrial Power.



pence per unit.
pence per unit.


Newcastle - upon -Tyne Electric Supply Co., Ltd.
3.01
0.52


Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Co.
3.58
0.41


South Shields Corporation.
3.54
0.96


Darlington Corporation
1.71
0.52


Sunderland Corporation
2.54
0.89

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS (ACREAGE).

Major HARVEY: 60.
asked the Home Secretary if the acreage measurements of Parliamentary Divisions given in the House of Commons Paper, No. 242 of 22nd December, 1919, were based upon the details and boundaries given in Cmd. 8756 of 1917?

Mr. SHORT: The acreage of constituencies as given in the Home Office return of 22nd December, 1919, is that of the constituencies as proposed by the Boundary Commissioners in the report, Cmd. 8756 of 1917, subject to the modifications made by Schedule IX to the Representation of the People Act, 1918.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

FOREIGN PIECE GOODS EXPORTS COMPANY, LIMITED.

Mr. REMER: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has any further
information as to the operations of the Foreign Piece Goods Export Company, Limited; if he can state if any British cotton goods have actually as yet been exported; and, if so, to what countries?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): No, Sir, I have no information beyond that which I have already given to the House.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman making any inquiries as to whether cotton is being exported from this country?

Mr. BENN: I have given the House all the information I have on this matter.

Mr. REMER: If I put a question down for next Monday, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer it?

Mr. BENN: If the hon. Member puts a question down, I will give all the information that is available.

FORCED LABOUR.

Mr. BROCKWAY: 67.
asked the Secretary of State, for India whether his attention has been called to the migration of peasants from 12 villages in Balasinor State, Rajputana, in order to avoid forced labour; and whether he will take steps to prevent the continuation of forced labour in the Indian States?

Mr. BENN: I have no information on the matter. The provisions of the Slavery Convention of 1926, one of the articles of which deals with certain aspects of forced labour, were brought to the notice of the, Darbars of Indian States in 1927.

Mr. BROCKWAY: In view of the fact that this notice was given in 1927, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could not inquire as to whether forced labour does not continue,; and, if it does, whether he would not act in the matter?

HON. MEMBERS: What about Russia?

Mr. BENN: I have no information on the matter to which the hon. Member calls attention. Perhaps he will give me the information on which his question is based?

Oral Answers to Questions — CALENDAR REFORM.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how
many proposals for the reform of the calendar have been received for discussion by the League of Nations at Geneva in the autumn; and if he will give particulars of any proposals which have been regarded as practical?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to receive a report from the Secretariat of the League of Nations, which will be based on the reports made by the various national committees of inquiry into calendar reform.

Sir C. RAWSON: Could the Under-Secretary of State tell me whether the Foreign Secretary is considering the proposal of Mr. Shepherd, which seems to be simpler than most of the other proposals?

Mr. DALTON: The question as to what policy we should adopt should be addressed to the Home Office. It is not a matter for the Foreign Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENSUS ENUMERATORS BIRMINGHAM (PAYMENT).

Mr. SIMMONS: 71.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Census enumerators who were employed in the area covering the Erdington Parliamentary Division have not yet received the sums due to them in settlement of their claims for services rendered; that the majority are unemployed men; that this withholding of their remuneration is causing much real hardship; that one man sent his boots to be repaired at the beginning of his engagement and is waiting the settlement of his claim before he can recover them; and if, in view of the hardship indicated by these facts, he will cause an immediate settlement of all the outstanding claims of these men to be effected?

Miss LAWRENCE: Orders were issued for payment of the Census enumerators in respect of the two sub-districts which comprise the Erdington Parliamentary Division on the 4th and 16th June, respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUBBER INDUSTRY.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 72.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
whether he will make a statement as to the progress of negotiations with the Dutch Government with a view to instituting some measure to control exports of rubber; and whether the British Government will take all necessary steps to safeguard the interests of British producers in British Possessions, especially in the matter of establishing an embargo by the respective Governments on extension of plantings by native producers?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): No official negotiations with the Dutch Government are in progress, and no proposal for an embargo on extension of plantings by native producers is being discussed with them.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Will the Secretary of State, in the interests of British planters, see that any proposals the Dutch Government may make are likely to be carried out?

Dr. SHIELS: If and when the occasion arises, the Secretary of State will take the point mentioned by the hon. Member into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS.

Mr. BROCKWAY: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps are to be taken to extend self-government to the population of Cyprus?

Dr. SHIELS: No such steps are at present in contemplation.

Mr. BROCKWAY: May I ask, in view of the declared policy of our party—[Interruption]—and the indication of the desire of the people of Cyprus, whether the Under-Secretary will not reconsider the answer which he has given?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir, I have nothing to add to the reply.

Mr. McSHANE: Do the terms of reference to the committee which is in Cyprus now include the question of the self-government of the island?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir.

Mr. BROCKWAY: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that forced unpaid labour is in operation for road-making
and other purposes in Cyprus; and, if so, whether he will take steps to terminate it?

Dr. SHIELS: This matter has been under consideration and amending legislation has been enacted by the Cyprus Government to put an end to the system under which compulsory labour could be exacted for village road construction. The text of the amending law has just been received and is being examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (VISITING CHILDREN).

Mr. MILLS: 75.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if any approximate figures exist of the number of school children who visit the Palace of Westminster yearly; whether he is aware that many hundreds come long distances bringing food with them; and whether, owing to the frequency of rain, he will consider the erection of some shelter in the adjoining gardens or in or near St. James's Park where liquid refreshment could be provided?

Mr. LANSBURY: I have no record of the number of children who visit the Palace of Westminster. I do not consider it possible, however, to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion either in relation to Victoria Tower Gardens or St. James's Park.

Mr. MILLS: Is the First Commissioner aware that at the end of the Victoria Gardens there are, and have been for two or three years, contractors' houses and shelters? Could they not, when that contract is terminated, be used?

Mr. LANSBURY: That is a matter which could be considered when the contract is finished, but at present it is quite useless.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH LEGATION, LIMA.

Major COLFOX: 76.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that in the legation now being built under the direction of his Department at Lima foreign steel is being used; what is the country of origin of this steel; and, seeing that the manufacture of this steel in the United Kingdom would give employment to many British work-
men, will he give instructions for the suspension of the work until British steel can be made available?

Mr. LANSBURY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that approximately 100 tons of steel reinforcing bars have been imported from Luxemburg. The original tenders for the legation building at Lima were much in excess of the amount authorised, and the plans and specification had to be revised, with the object of reducing costs. As it was understood that stocks of steel reinforcing bars were available locally, contractors were left to make their own arrangements on grounds of urgency and expense. Having regard to the present stage of building operations, I regret that the suggestion contained in the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is impracticable.

Major COLFOX: Would it not have been just as easy to have got this material from England as from Luxemburg; and would it not also have given some employment to British workmen?

Mr. LANSBURY: If the hon. and gallant Member will read my answer, he will discover that the steel was on the spot, ready and available.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY CHARTS (ROYALTIES).

Mr. SOREMSEN: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the amounts received in royalties for the use of Admiralty charts are small, and that nevertheless the insistence since 1927 on this charge to the makers of fishermen's charts is causing unemployment, he has reconsidered, or will reconsider, the policy of insisting on such royalties in this connection being paid?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The matter has been very fully considered, and I am satisfied that the policy of charging royalties is not unduly burdensome and must be maintained.

Mr. SORENSEN: Will the Financial Secretary give us the necessary information when he has completed his inquiries?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It will be my duty, if I have any facts to put before the House, to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUMBER BRIDGE BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Lieut.-Colonel Sir Lambert Ward to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Slaughter of Animals Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill, without Amendment.

London County Council (Vauxhall Cross Improvement) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Epsom Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [Lords],

Trowbridge, Melksham, and District Water Board Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Wareham." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wareham Extension) Bill [Lords].

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WAREHAM EXTENSION) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Second Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they
had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Slaughter of Animals Bill): Mr. Blindell, Mr. Rhys Davies, Sir Robert Gower, Mr. Guinness, Mr. William Hirst, Sir Joseph Lamb, Miss Lawrence, Mr. Marshall, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, and Miss Wilkinson.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 18th June.]

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 31.—(Advances to Road Fund for meeting expenditure in connection with expedited schemes.)

The CHAIRMAN: Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: With your permission and approval, Mr. Chairman, it would perhaps be better for the general discussion to be taken on the second Amendment which appears on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley). I do not, therefore, propose to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 33, line 38, to leave out from the word "schemes," to the word "which" in line 39.
The Clause which we are now considering and upon which I understand that within reason a general discussion is to be allowed, is of very considerable importance. The words that I propose to leave out are
expedited on account of the existing conditions of employment.
Last week we had a short discussion on the Financial Resolution on which this Clause is founded, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport made a full statement explaining the Financial Resolution, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) gave a short answer to it. I must briefly refer to a statement which was made by the Minister of Transport, while the Financial Resolution was being discussed. He said what was not justified, namely, that the necessity for borrowing from the Treasury was owing to the action of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), when he occupied the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nothing could be further
from the truth than that imputation of the financial uprightness of my right hon. Friend. What are the facts? In 1926 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, rightly or wrongly, induced this House to agree to his taking £7,000,000, then standing to the credit of the Road Fund, and to his taking away from the Road Fund what he called the luxury part of motor taxation. That is to say, he was allowed to deduct from the taxation which accrued from the use of private motor-cars and motor cycles, one-third, which was to go to the Treasury to be used for general purposes, and the remaining two-thirds, representing the wear and tear on the roads, was to remain in the Road Fund.
Naturally I personally was sorry that my right hon. Friend did so. It is understandable that anyone who has had the handling, subject to the Treasury, of a large sum of money and has been in charge of a Department responsible for road transport, should think that the money would be better spent on roads than on general services. Many motorists thought the same thing. What I want to make clear is that the then Opposition had exactly the same view, and that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was so clearly of opinion that we were wrong, that he divided the Committee against the Government of the day and said that, not £7,000,000, but only £1,000,000, should be taken from the Fund. Next year my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping was placed in a very difficult position from the financial point of view. The General Strike of 1926 had taken place, with its terrible financial consequences to the community, and my right hon. Friend was obliged to take a further £12,000,000 from the Road Fund. To say that the taking of this £12,000,000—£3,000,000 more than the £9,000,000 which it is now proposed to borrow—was my right hon. Friend's fault is a travesty of the facts. The fault lies with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who supported the strike. We know that the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister was present when the committee of the Trade union Congress decided on the strike, and supported it.

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that we cannot on this occasion enter into a discussion of that subject.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I then put it in this way: Owing to facts consequent upon happenings which were beyond his control, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping was obliged to take a further £12,000,000 from the Road Fund, and had he not been obliged to do so, by circumstances which it was beyond his power to control, this Resolution would not have been necessary. It seems strange to me that the party who denounced the action of my right hon. Friend on that occasion in all the moods and tenses now come along and continue what they described as the pernicious activities of my right hon. Friends. Have the Government paid back the £19,000,000 to the Road Fund? Have the Government ceased to draw on the luxury part of the Fund? Not at all. They have out-Heroded Herod. They have gone one better than Satan. They have not only approved of sin, but improved on the sin.
On the general proposition which arises here, namely, whether we are justified or not in sanctioning this proposal, we must, before we divide on the question, consider whether the nation can afford these luxury roads, and these grandiose schemes and whether the financial state of the country warrants us in allowing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to advance to the Road Fund during this financial year no less a sum than £9,000,000 sterling. Many of us, I am afraid, have lost our sense of proportion in regard to these matters. In Mr. Gladstone's time — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am not ashamed to cite Mr. (Gladstone as a great financial expert. In Mr. Gladstone's time what would have been said if the Government of the day had come down to the House and declared that they wanted to advance £9,000,000 sterling to a specific service? Why, the very proposal is enough to make Mr. Gladstone turn in his grave, and though we have, I am afraid, lost a great deal of our respect for these financial principles, may I put some considerations very briefly to the Committee? At the present moment we have a £900,000,000 Budget. Before the War, the whole of the National Debt was only £709,000,000, so that the Government are actually asking the House of Commons in this Finance Bill to spend in 12 months nearly £200,000,000 more than the whole National Debt in 1913.

Mr. VAUGHAN: There has been a war.

Colonel ASHLEY: Of course there has been a war, and that is the reason why we ought to be more careful than ever not to spend more money than is absolutely necessary. It is all the more reason why we should make sure that we do not expend money unnecessarily; and in my opinion the present expenditure is not necessary. In present circumstances we ought to make quite sure that the money which we do spend is used for the best possible purpose, and that it accomplishes the end which the Government have in view, namely, the diminution of unemployment. When we consider that we are taxed twice as heavily as any other country, and that the ratepayers in the county council areas are now finding £28,000,000 a year, compared with £10,000,000 in 1913–14. I think it is apparent that we must scrutinise with special care this particular Clause.
What is the justification put forward by the Minister for this Clause? Last year the right hon. Gentleman induced the Prime Minister to attend a meeting of local authorities, and the two right hon. Gentleman urged the local authorities—borough authorities, county councils, and, even, I think, some of the rural district councils, but at any rate the major local authorities—to expedite, as far as they could, and practically regardless of cost, road works and bridge works for the relief of unemployment. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport were in their most persuasive mood. It was not for them to intimidate the local authorities, or to say anything which would arouse the opposition of the local authorities. They cooed as softy as doves. They said, "We will give you larger grants if you expedite this work." I am not enamoured of this way of getting local authorities to carry out local works—bribing them with grants to undertake works which whether they be large or small, will increase the weight of expense on the already over-burdened ratepayer. But what I object to most strongly is the attitude taken up on this matter by the President of the Board of Trade. One would regard him as a man who could win over anybody. He is a persuasive person—I might almost call
him a meek and mild person—and he certainly is most charming in his speeches in this Chamber. Even when he resists one's amendments he does so in such a charming way as to disarm one's criticism. But when he gets outside, especially when there is a county council election going on, he can be a little misleading. What did he say with regard to these works, speaking in Hackney on 27th February last?
Unless the schemes which are now being considered by local authorities could be greatly accelerated in the interest of providing work, it might be necessary for the central government to take additional powers, and to take those powers away from the local authorities.
4.0 p.m.
I strongly object to that statement. Is the proposition seriously to be advanced that great municipalities like Liverpool, Birmingham and Glasgow, great county councils like Lancashire, Yorkshire and Hampshire are to have their powers for dealing with unemployment taken away from them simply because they stand for sound finance? It is those bodies which are putting a brake upon national expenditure in resisting the demands of the central government which is seeking to force them to spend more money. In this connection, I would draw attention to the very illuminating resolution which was passed by the County Councils' Association at the end of March last. The County Councils' Association, whether you agree with their politics or not, or whether you agree with their unemployment programme or not, is a highly representative and powerful body. It is consulted by the Home Office, by the Board of Trade, by the Ministry of Health and very often by the Ministry of Transport before any change is made in local government or any new burden is placed upon it. Therefore, they are people whose considered opinion one cannot easily disregard. What was the resolution passed in March last?
Neither by legislation, nor by order, regulation or pressure of Government Departments should any additional expenditure be imposed upon local authorities during the existing trade depression.
I submit that that is a very strong expression of opinion, It is felt by the local authorities, in no hostile spirit, that really the limit has been reached in national expenditure, and I do hope the
right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport will not disregard this resolution when he has a little more time to think over the matter.
The next question I would ask the Committee to consider—and it is a very important one—is this: Has the road programme dealt with in Clause 31 achieved its object? I would like to quote again an extract from the report of the Unemployment Commission. It was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon on the Financial Resolution, when he used these words:
We ought to say at once that we regard this, and this sort of remedy, when considered as a contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem, as being purely derisory. We share that view with the Unemployment Commission, and I would call attention to one sentence of the report of that Commission, which hon. Members will find on page 9. The Commission are dealing with various classes of industries in which exceptional unemployment is prevalent, and they say:
'The causes of the depression in the industries of exceptional unemployment are easy to understand. These industries fall into three broad classes. … There is third, a class of industries, which has been expanding rather than contracting and enjoying in some cases, a high degree of prosperity. … To this class belong building and public works contracting, in which a large expenditure of public money has stimulated employment without preventing unemployment.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1931; cols. 1854–5, Vol. 253.]
You may not pay attention to the views of right hon. and hon. Members who sit on these benches, but you cannot disregard the considered views of the Unemployment Commission as outlined in that extract which I have just read to the Committee. What is the programme exactly, as I understand it—it is a little difficult to follow—which the right hon. Gentleman proposes in dealing with the £9,000,000? The total estimated expenditure on the five-year programme, of 1929 is £27,500,000, and of this the Road Fund will find £12,000,000. Then we come to the trunk road programme, which amounts to £21,000,000. So that the two programmes together amount to the stupendous sum of £48,500,000, which, if I know anything about it, will extend to £50,000,000 with unforeseen contingencies before we have done with it. Therefore, we may say that we are giving sanction, as far as we can in this financial year, in this Clause to a programme which entails the expenditure of
£50,000,000—an enormous amount of money which, even in these days, when money is being spent like water, is worthy of the serious consideration of the Committee. I want to make it clear that this £50,000,000 is not, of course, going to be spent in this financial year. I understand that the £50,000,000, or roughtly that amount, will be spread over five years, and we are in about the second year, probably, of the five-year programme.

Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what it involves in rates?

Colonel ASHLEY: I can only tell my hon. Friend that the total estimated expenditure under the five-year programme is £27,500,000, and of that, I understand, the Road Fund will find £12,000,000, so that the rates will have to find £15,500,000.

Sir BASIL PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the £50,000,000 is over and above what you may term the normal expenditure on the roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not, of course, in charge of the proposals, but this is over and above the ordinary expenditure. It is an expenditure of £50,000,000 for five years solely, from the Government point of view, to relieve unemployment. Is it going to achieve its object? Even if it is, I venture to oppose it, because I think that there are better ways of doing it. But will it achieve the professed object of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government? Certainly not. At the present moment there are some 2,600,000 unemployed. The number may be a few thousand more or less, but I think it is not an unfair statement to make that we have 2,600,000 unemployed. I should be out of order in going into the unemployment question generally, but, in passing, I may say that the Government are not finding work under all their schemes for more than 9½ per cent. Keeping to the strict terms of the question before the Committee, namely, the work to be expedited under this Clause. I may remind the Committee of the recent statement made by the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour that on 24th April last, on State-aided road and bridge schemes, 48,000 people were directly em-
ployed. That is to say, you may take it that at the present moment, that on road and bridge schemes which are aided by State money, 48,000 people are directly employed.
It has always been an agreed principle in the Ministry, and also, I gather from his statement, by the right hon. Gentleman the Dominions Secretary, that if on bridge or road work you employ one man, you indirectly employ another, and, therefore, to give a correct picture of the amount of employment created by the right hon. Gentleman's bridge and road schemes, you have got to multiply his 48,000 by two, which gives us as the total number of people employed, 96,000—let us say 100,000 employed at the present moment by these works on roads and bridges. What is the cost of employing them? If you spend on bridges and roads in any 12 months £1,000,000, it is calculated that you provide employment for 4,000 people directly and indirectly. I think that is an agreed proposition which no one seriously contradicts. Therefore, we have the terrible result, the astounding result, that in the 12 months you employ these 96,000 people, the State is spending £24,000,000. Is that justified?
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), in a very thoughtful and well-reasoned article in the magazine of Lloyds Bank for April, gave it as his considered opinion—and I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend is inclined to exaggerate—that if you spent £1,000,000 in 12 months on unemployment benefit you would look after 20,000 people. Therefore, by this programme of the right hon. Gentleman he is spending £5, when he could possibly have got off with £l, in providing for the unemployed. It may be said, "That may be so, but, after all, you have got the asset when the road is made." Does it not turn upon whether the roads and bridges you are now making are really needed or not? I may be wrong, but I am of opinion that, even towards the end of the time in which we were in office, we were approaching the end of the list of the really necessary roads and bridges to carry on in this country in our present financial position. These bridges and roads may be desirable. They may afford a great deal of contentment to the motorist who
wants to go 100 miles an hour, but they do not really add to the wealth of the country. What is more, hon. Members opposite forget that they have got to be maintained out of the local rates. Therefore, I oppose this proposal in Clause 31 on the ground that it does not achieve its object. It is outrageously expensive, and, above all, it turns the attention of the local authorities away from their proper function, namely, the maintenance of the existing roads in good order.
We cannot afford the maintenance of existing roads and the improvement of the rural roads which are so much needed if we try to do everything at once. It would be far better, and it would help the country so far as trade and communications are concerned, if we concentrated on the real A.1 maintenance of existing roads, and if in the country districts extra help were given to the county councils to bring up the country roads to the level of the first-class roads, instead of going in for this large and expensive programme which the right hon. Gentleman asks us to contemplate. As a contribution to unemployment, such programmes are not a success. It is far better to leave the money in the hands of the private capitalist in order that he may give permanent employment. What is the use of employing a man for 18 months or two years and then sending him back on to the unemployment list? The hon. Gentleman is like Canute or Mrs. Partington. He sits there, and says to the tide of unemployment, "You go back." Mrs. Partington tried to mop up the Atlantic with her mop, and the right hon. Gentleman will not succeed in moping up the sea of unemployment. I suppose that this Clause will go through to-day, and we shall be committed to this huge programme of £50,000,000 and an unknown burden upon the local rates. We on our side, however, will have made our protest, and have done what we can to prevent it. It may be said that it is strange for an ex-Minister of Transport to speak in this way, but I have tried to take a national and not a departmental view, and, if one thinks that a Department is going too far, one must lift up one's voice in protest.

Mr. VAUGHAN: I was grieved to hear the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who formerly held high office as Minister of Transport. Until to-day I had reason in my capacity of chairman of a committee of the county council with which I am associated, to think highly of him. Since the present Minister of Transport has succeeded him, I will go so far as to say, without being disloyal, that I have compared the previous occupant of that office with the present occupant to the advantage of the previous occupant. There are certain occasions in my memory when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman actually awarded our county 100 per cent. grant on an arterial road, and we have never had that——

Colonel ASHLEY: It was because you were so persuasive.

Mr. VAUGHAN: Since this Government came into office, we have tried the same persuasive powers on the present Minister, but have never once succeeded. To what does the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman amount? I, too, read the article by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) to which he referred, and was impressed by the information which it conveyed. He was not advocating that men should be kept in idleness and not in work. He was trying to point out that work could not be accelerated because it was cheaper to keep men in idleness than in work. To-day we have the right hon. and gallant Gentleman going a step further in his reactionary attitude, and saying confidently that it is better for the country to keep men on unemployment benefit or public assistance maintenance than to give them work which would give the country abiding assets'. Whether that be so or not, let us admit at once that the County Councils Association to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred is one of the most reactionary bodies in this country.
I will try to traverse his argument that expenditure in road and bridge development is unsound finance. Upon his own figures he contradicted his own statement that £1,000,000 spent gave employment for one year to 4,000 men. From my experience, I could very much increase that number; if only I had the power to eliminate the atrocious cost of land and the cost of profits, the labour costs would
be greatly in excess of the figure that has been accepted by the House and by experts. In fact, to make a road or bridge, if you could eliminate the profit of private enterprise——

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. VAUGHAN: I am sorry to have wandered so wide. If 4,000 people are given employment for a year for every £1,000,000 spent, surely the common sense of the country will say that it is far better to give that much of solid work than to keep a large number of men doing nothing. Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is nothing that helps the growth of wealth more than roads? Over and over again we have seen along new roads—unfortunately too much alongside in the case of ribbon development—that wealth begins to build, and houses spring up and factories grow. I shall be faced with the argument that that growth is extracted from some other place in the country, but what the local authorities in their misery have needed for years is a growing rateable value, and these roads minister to that need in almost every instance. I have taken great pains to go round and ask what ground rents are paid, and I am convinced that for every road cut, on the average, the expense can be paid by the increasing wealth and business which is immediately created around it.
There is an urgent necessity for hundreds of miles of roads to be improved. The Roads Improvement Association sent out, a year or two ago, a questionnaire to the surveyors of road authorities. The hundreds of replies which came in were nearly all the same, although they were received from different parts of the country; they were to the effect that roads and bridges were in a deplorable state and needed widening. I know in my own county of Monmouth arterial roads that have never been laid with ballast. As the road traffic has increased on what was once a country lane, corners have been taken off and then the road widened, but no foundation has been laid at all. When unusually heavy traffic comes along, it bursts the road asunder, and the sides are pushed up against the kerb. It is then discovered that the only foundation
which the road has had is the continual tar-spraying and the gravel that has been applied from time to time. A vast amount of expenditure would be saved local authorities if the roads were even now properly laid. I would go a good deal further than the Minister of Transport is prepared to go. I would speak to the recalcitrant local authorities in stronger terms than our gentle cooing dove, as the right hon. Gentleman referred to the President of the Board of Trade, would use. These local authorities are chiefly Tory and reactionary authorities, which have been exploiting the Labour Government hoping to get larger and larger grants, biding their time until the increasing volume of unemployment might terrorise the present Government into giving 100 per cent. grant, and I wish that the Minister would make up ids mind and say to them, "We will wait for you no longer, but we will take the arterial roads and make them national roads"——

The CHAIRMAN rose——

Mr. VAUGHAN: I have finished. I am very much obliged to you for allowing me to get so far, although I knew that I was somewhat outside the Amendment. I hope that the Minister will resist the Amendment, and go on improving our great highways, cutting off dangerous corners and rebuilding bridges, until we can be commensurate in our progress with other countries such as Italy and America.

Mr. HURD: As I understand the road policy of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, it is that we should forthwith wipe out the local highway authorities——

Mr. VAUGHAN: The reactionary authorities.

Mr. HURD: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that all the local authorities are reactionary, and I am glad that he makes a distinction, because I am specially associated with a rural district council. I understand that he excludes them, and refers only to county councils. I take his main theme to be that, so far as the main highway authorities are concerned, they should be eliminated and wiped out, and that we should look entirely to Whitehall for any future development.

Mr. VAUGHAN: I said that I would deal with those recalcitrant authorities that will not develop their arterial roads.

Mr. HURD: Very well, I accept that statement. At any rate his policy is one of more roads and of better roads. It is our policy, too. I would remind hon. Members, in case they forget it, that in the year 1929 we, the people of England, were spending in rates and taxes £60,000,000 upon our roads. I should have thought that expenditure would have been sufficient to obtain all the better roads we really require, especially in view of the grave financial position of the country. Personally, I would have liked to see a much larger proportion of that £60,000,000 spent upon secondary roads and unclassified roads. I agree with the hon. Member that we have been far too negligent of them. As my right hon. and gallant Friend on the Opposition Front Bench said, we have thought far too much of those big, broad arterial roads which cut through the countryside and in many places are quite unnecessary, or at all events are in advance of the needs of the country, and far too little of those other roads which are so essential to our country life; but I am not so sanguine as to imagine that anything we on this side of the Committee may say will deflect the Minister of Transport or hon. Members opposite from the policy on which they have embarked. In view of the solemn warnings which have come from heads of the Treasury, from heads of industry and from heads of trade unions regarding the financial condition of the country and our steady trend towards bankruptcy, it is astonishing to me to find a proposal for continuing this large expenditure upon projects which, however desirable they might be in other circumstances, are certainly not a necessary addition to our national life.
My right hon. and gallant Friend on the Opposition Front Bench has pointed out how small an effect this expenditure will have upon unemployment. It is almost a negligible effect, in view of the huge amount of unemployment there is. Another consideration which I would urge upon the Committee is the way in which the extravagant development of the grant system is eliminating local government in many parts of England. We have Whitehall driving local authorities out of their
proper function of road management to an extent which is degrading. It is degrading from the point of view of effective local administration. One of the great glories of England of which we always talk—when we go abroad, at all events—is the way in which municipal life has been built up, close to the needs and the hearts of the people, upon a representative basis—it is a model to the world; but the action of the Minister of Transport under this swollen grant system is removing from highway authorities any effective control over expenditure. My own county affords a glaring example of this. The grant has been made so large that my county council might not exist, so far as road development is concerned. The grant gives the Whitehall authorities such power that our local people have not a say in the matter.
That domination by Whitehall is a deplorable feature of modern tendencies, and I believe it is leading to an extravagance in administration and to a waste which we can ill afford. In the early days of the late Administration some of us were so much impressed by the tendencies to extravagance which would follow the continued existence of the Ministry of Transport that we strongly urged its abolition. Unfortunately, we were not successful in our aim, but the condition of our national finances has become so grave, in the opinion of those far removed from political considerations, that this gross extravagance which is going on under the Ministry of Transport will have to stop, whether we like it or not, and the stopping of it will come far sooner than be imagine; and with the stopping of it I hope there will come the abolition of the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. MARCH: I was very much surprised to hear the ex-Minister of Transport speak as he did to-day about road improvement and road development. I always thought he was anxious to see our roads put into good order, and from time to time I have heard hon. Members opposite pressing the Minister of Transport to assist in improving rural roads, wishing to have them made classified roads—not No. 1 or No. 2 roads, but No. 3 roads; and I remember that some even advocated their classification as No. 4 roads, if only they could get a grant from the Ministry. What would the ex-
Minister do in this matter? Would he stop what is being done on the roads? Does he want to delete Clause 31 and cut out the £9,000,000 to be devoted to road improvement and road extensions? Is that the meaning of his Amendment? I ask that because from time to time we hear from the other side the question, "What are you doing for the unemployed?" Is this not doing something for the unemployed? The right hon. Gentleman himself had to admit that this proposal of the Government would employ 100,000 men. Surely it is better to have 100,000 men working rather than walking about looking for jobs. If he wants to stop the work on roads and bridges, with what work would he replace it; or are the unemployed to be told that they are to stand by for a year or two? Does he not know that this expenditure affects others besides the men employed directly on the roads? Does he not know that a large amount of cement is required, which provides work for other men? Does he not know that they want a good deal of gravel and sand with which to make the concrete? Does he not know that gravel pits have to be dug to get the gravel, and does not that employ men? I was surprised to hear the ex-Minister talking as he did. Then he asked what are the assets which all this expenditure will produce. There are many roads in Hampshire, his county, which could be improved.

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member has been asking me a series of questions and so far I have resisted the temptation to reply, but I must intervene now. In Hampshire there are quite a number of secondary roads—rural loads—which urgently need repair, and I said so in my speech; but quite a number of bypasses are to be made which, in my opinion, ought not to be constructed, because we cannot afford them at the present time.

Mr. MARCH: Those bypass roads will relieve some of the second class roads, and then the local councils will have an opportunity of improving the rural roads. I come from the county of Essex. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members may well say "Oh." I have said "Oh" many times. If there is a reactionary county council it is in Essex. They have only just begun to
wake up and to do any work. By the help of the present Ministry of Transport they have been able to make one or two by-pass roads. They are making some improvements, but they have been slow about it. I hope the Minister will not take much notice of what has been said by hon. Members opposite regarding this expenditure, but will go on with it and improve the roads. Not only have we to strengthen or improve existing bridges or build new ones but we ought to make a start in building bridges over level crossings. It grieves me when I hear of road traffic being run into at level crossings and people being killed. That could be avoided if bridges were put over the crossings.
With regard to the by-pass roads and first-class roads I would remind the ex-Minister that they are an asset to a local authority by saving them so much work in clearing the mud and slush off the rural roads which otherwise would be more used by motorists. The big new roads are soon cleaned after a shower of rain. I hope the Minister will take no notice of what the ex-Minister said regarding the Fund. It was depleted of £7,000,000 by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1926. The ex-Minister could not say anything about the main reason why the then Chancellor of the Exchequer took that money, except that he had not balanced his Budget, and gathered in the money from the Road Fund. In 1927, when he was short of money again, he took £12,000,000 from the Road Fund, and explained his action by the General Strike, which he said was an unforeseen occurrence, although most people knew that as things were going there would be a general strike sooner or later.

The CHAIRMAN: I called the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) to order when he referred to the General Strike, and cannot allow the hon. Member to deal with it.

Mr. MARCH: I want to remind the ex-Minister of Transport of the £12,000,000, because he made some speeches about it. We have been able to help the authorities to a much larger extent than before, and because the Minister now asks for £9,000,000 to carry
on this 12 months' programme all these old arguments are thrown up against him. The policy which has now been adopted was bound to come, because the progress of the work was being stopped. I hope the Minister will utilise this money for the improvement of bridges and the building of new bridges as soon as possible.

Lord ERSKINE: Reference has been made to the policy of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with the Road Fund. I never regarded the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) as an angel of light in regard to matters of finance, but I think the one right thing that he did was his action in regard to the Road Fund. I am one of those who believe that since the War we have been spending far too much money on the roads. Those hon. Members who have been abroad and have made a comparison between the condition of our roads and foreign roads will agree that a great deal of the money which has been spent on our roads is not justified. A. large part of the money which has been spent on the roads in this country is justified, according to hon. Members opposite, on the ground that it is being done to help unemployment. I believe in the remarks made by Mr. Pitt when he said that it was far better to allow money to fructify in the pockets of the taxpayer. I think it is much better to allow money to go into the ordinary channels of trade than spend it on the roads in order to help unemployment. It has been said that this expenditure has put 100,000 people into work, but financial experts state that for every single man you put into work in this way by spending State money you are denying employment to a much larger number of men who would have been employed in the ordinary way by private firms. Hon. Members opposite have said that many county councils are reactionary, and do not like to spend money on road making, and that, when the roads are made, they become assets for those county councils. I doubt whether many of the ratepayers in some of the poor counties in this country regard these new roads as assets. I know that in many agricultural counties the county councils are very chary of undertaking expenditure of that kind, and I think that in many cases they are right.
There is one other fact which has not been mentioned in this Debate, and it is that the expenditure of these vast sums of money by the State in road development is doing definite harm to the railways of the country. A great deal of our traffic which is now carried along the main roads used to be carried over the railways. The traffic returns of the railways are going down, and we must realise that the reduction of the railway traffic returns has been entirely due to the development, of these great arterial roads. Thousands of railway workers are now unemployed because of the rapid development of traffic along the main roads. I think we ought to consider the effect which the spending of many millions of money upon the roads has had upon the railways both in regard to employment and dividends. It does not seem to me to be correct that a great Government Department should spend millions of money upon one class of communications when by doing so they are destroying the revenue of railways and the employment undertaken in the past by our large railway companies.
We have been spending too much money on the roads during the last few years. I would like to ask if this £9,000,000 with which we are now dealing is the amount of money which has been wrung from the Government by the Liberal party. When this Parliament began we had a tremendous scheme put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and ever since that time the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends have been pressing the Government to spend larger sums of money upon the roads. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has won, because a great deal more than £9,000,000 was asked for in the scheme put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and the Government have been able to resist larger demands made by the Liberal party. In spite of that, I think the Minister of Transport and the Government are now spending too much money upon roads. I have stated the reasons why I think that is so, and I hope in the future, when another and more enlightened Government is sitting upon the benches opposite, we may be
able to reduce the amount of money which is now being spent on the roads, and reduce taxation at the same time.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I think the policy of the Government is right on this occasion, because they are only trying to recover what has really been taken from the Road Fund by a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. This Clause simply gives power to borrow the money when it can be usefully used. Hon. Members who take exception to the use of this money for these purposes forget that, in the main, it is not only the roads that require improvement for the first time, but the various bottleneck roads and narrow roads that need widening in order to allow the increased traffic to reach its destination. Anyone who has been near the docks in our great industrial centres must realise the great amount of money required in order to get the full use of the splendid roads which we now possess. I hope that at no distant date the Minister of Transport will assume the control of all our big main thoroughfares, because, after all, the chief complaint of the local authorities and the county councils is that their roads are blocked by traffic which has nothing to do with their own localities. We ought to adopt the continental practice and have big national roads under Government control, leaving the second or third-class roads to be handled by the local authorities.

Colonel ASHLEY: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be content to have the main roads in his own constituency run by Whitehall?

Sir R. HUTCHISON: I hope, at any rate, that the main roads in Scotland will be run by an office in Edinburgh, If we had one office to control all the main roads from one end of the country to the other we should also require offices in different parts of the country dealing with national roads. Surely it would be better instead of leaving all these things in the hands of the county council to go a step further, and provide that all the main arteries should be run under national control.

The CHAIRMAN: I have already called an hon. Member to order for
putting forward similar suggestions, and the hon. and gallant Member is not in order in dealing with national control.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: I am sorry that I was drawn away from my argument. I think the money which it is proposed to borrow can be usefully employed in very many directions. We must realise what traffic is likely to be in the course of the next 10 or 20 years, and, if we exercise foresight, we shall provide for a much larger development of traffic. I know that it takes time to do all these things, but what I always feel when motoring through the country and observing such a large development of motor traffic is that we shall not be in time with our provision of proper traffic accommodation, and we shall have a period of congestion until proper facilities are available.
5.0 p.m.
I congratulate the Government upon their action in trying to get on with the solution of this problem. I hope they will speed up and not give way to all this talk about economy. Real economy does not consist in the holding up of money, but in the wise use of money. Even businesses which are making losses are now spending large sums of money on new plant in the hope that they will be able to lower the cost of production and earn a profit. It is the same with accommodation on the roads. If we curtail our expenditure now, we shall only have to spend tenfold when the real need comes in some years' time. I would like to refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Vaughan), who complained that the full benefit has not been secured by the public for the increased value of land owing to our big main roads bringing factories and other important developments to a district. I agree, and I wish that this Bill had dealt with that question instead of dealing with double taxation of land that is fully developed.

The CHAIRMAN: I called the attention of the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Vaughan) to the fact that that question is out of order.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: I will not detain the Committee further, but I commend this part of the Bill to the Committee, and hope the Government will go on with it.

Mr. J. JONES: The object of the Clause which we are now discussing is to improve our road communications. I heard an hon. Member opposite talking about the effect that it may have on the railways. The railways have had their chance. They had a monopoly of traffic in this country for many years, and they took full advantage of that monopoly. One of the things that we used to read in the "Times"—and I am a regular reader of the "Times," in addition to the "Daily Herald"—was how the traders used to grumble about the excessive charges of the railways for the carrying of goods over their lines. Having had the monopoly for all those years, they have suddenly discovered that a new method of transport has been brought into existence, whereby goods can be carried from door to door without interchanging, and all that kind of thing, and now they are screaming the odds. The railways are feeling the draught, and some of their directors are coming with tears in their voices, saying, "For God's sake, are you going to help us out of our own inefficiency?" They have done their best in the past to take advantage of the community's misfortunes, and now they come asking us to come to their assistance. I happen to come from a district where we have had the full advantage of their policy. Those who know the docks in the East End of London know that we have been going down almost on our knees, asking the railway companies to give us facilities for traffic to and from the docks.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to deal with railways.

Mr. JONES: I regret that I have introduced ancient history, but it is modern to me. We are going to spend £9,000,000 more on the development of our road transport system, and can anybody say that, although we have made great arterial roads in all parts of the country, that has solved the traffic problem? Every new road that we make creates a new problem. If you go to the South Coast you find that all the rural areas around there are immediately affected by every new road that you make, and the by-passes and other roads find themselves in difficulties as soon as a main road is settled. We are only asking that the main roads, which cause the main issue, shall also be helped by the assistance of
the nation in the development of the bypass traffic and the necessary connections therewith. I do not pretend to be an expert, but all of us can see the difficulties. In every village that you come to, as you pass from the South Coast up to London, you find congestion being created as a result of the fact that we have made more progress.
Some people in this House like to live in a sleepy hollow. The man who goes from London and the woman who is having a day out are looked upon as interlopers, who ought to be prohibited from making use of the roads of England. The only time when they are allowed to use England is when there is a war on, and then they can have their traffic everywhere. You cannot have a main road system of transport without having the corollary of proper connections between the main roads and the non-main roads.
Hon. Members opposite make a great cry at by-elections about the amount that the Government are spending. Have they laid it down as a definite principle in their policy that the Government must not spend money in these matters? Have they made up their minds that the money has not been properly spent? Yet we find private notice questions almost every day in this House and hon. Members asking why certain money is not being spent in their constituencies. It is wrong if it is spent in somebody else's district, but, when it goes to their own constituency, they do not care how much money is spent. They say, "Spend what you like on us, but do not spend money on the other fellow"; and they are the Imperial party. We say that this expenditure is necessary from a national point of view. This money is going to be spent to correlate the traffic of this country and to wake up the railways. They have already got something—75 per cent. of their rates has been forgiven them—and we are asking now that this money should be spent on the road accommodation of this country. I have not had many opportunities of travelling abroad, but I have travelled in some countries, when I have been sent as a delegate from my trade union, and when I have seen what has been done in other countries, less wealthy than our own, in the way of road traffic and development, I have been ashamed of myself coming
from the greatest Empire that the world has ever Been, upon which the sun never sets, because it has not a decent place to set upon.
I want to support the Minister in his attempt to make up the difference between the main and the by-pass roads and to give the people a chance of using their own country, for that is at the back of it all. We do not know much of our own country yet. We have not seen half of it. I remember that when I came to London first, full 40 years ago, the people with whom I lodged in the East End had never seen the Tower of London or St. Paul's Cathedral, and a journey to the Houses of Parliament was looked upon as an undreamable idea. We want to open the country up, to develop its possibilities. If England was properly known, not merely to the people of this country, but to the people of other countries, we should be able to make up some of the leeway that we have lost in modern industrial development. It can be done, and this money is only a flea-bite. Nine million pounds! It takes away the breath of hon. Members opposite. Ninepence an hour is their idea for the workman, but £9,000,000, when it is a question of getting capitalist incomes and rents from properties, is nothing. Only the other day, in London, a company floated a loan of £9,000,000, and the books had to be closed in 10 minutes; and the people who subscribed that money are those who say that they are unable to afford the money to pay decent wages for their workmen. I hope the Minister will take his courage in both hands. He is quite capable of doing so, and we will back him so far as we are able.
Our complaint against our Government is about their modesty. They are too modest, and they are making presents of votes to hon. Members opposite. Let us face the music, and tell these people that you cannot make omelets without breaking eggs, and that if you are not prepared to attack the abuses of the present industrial system, you will make no progress. This is only a small move in the direction in which we wish to go, and I hope the Minister and the Cabinet will have courage and will say, "We do not accept the notion that we must go slowly, but the time has arrived when we should go faster, when we should say
to the world that we are prepared to face our problems, and that we are not going to make the working-classes suffer more than they have already suffered, but to use our ability to stop them suffering as much as they have done in the past," That ought to be our policy, Courage and confidence are necessary, and I hope the Minister will stick to his guns and, when he replies, tell the hon. Members opposite exactly what he means and what he thinks.

Captain GUNSTON: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will read with great interest the speech and the economics of the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones). We are not attacking expenditure on roads because we do not want to see people put into work. We are attacking expenditure on roads because we believe honestly that for the amount expended in this way the least amount of work is provided. The last speaker was very anxious that the country should recover its economic strength and should recondition itself. One of the best ways of helping industry is to let industry recondition itself and put in new machinery. It is interesting to note that the amount of money that we have taken from reserves roughly corresponds to the amount of money that we have spent on roads since the War. We have spent about £600,000,000 on roads since the War, and in the same time we have taken the same amount of money from industry. That is our quarrel with hon. Members opposite. We believe that if this money had been spent in industry, it would have enabled industry to recondition itself, to put in more machinery, and to give more employment than a similar amount of money spent on roads.
The amount of money which has been spent on roads has been disappointing in the amount of employment which it has given, and it is rather surprising to hear hon. Members say that they want to open up the country so that people can travel and see our beautiful country. Is there any country in the world which is opened up as England is? Has any country in the world got the roads that we have got? Then why level the finger of scorn at motor manufacturers and say, "You only build cars suitable for English roads"? Why is that so? It is
because the English roads are so much better than any other roads in the world.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to a point which has just come before my notice on a committee which has been sitting on the Humber Bridge Bill in the past few weeks. It appears that if you want to put in a big scheme for giving employment and helping road communications, you can get a grant from the Ministry of Transport. On the other hand, if you want to put in a big scheme for helping other forms of communication, you have to go to the Unemployment Grants Committee to get a grant byway of a third interest, but you do not get a free gift, as you do for road transport. That means that we have got to this extraordinary position in this country, that the motorists alone can say how the money is to be spent on the roads; and not only that, but under this Clause 31 you are going to give money from the Exchequer and to say that road development can have this grant from the Exchequer, through the Road Fund, as a free gift, but that no other form of transport can have that grant. I put that to the Minister because I think it is a question that he will probably like to look into.
It would be out of order to go into the discussions that we have had upstairs with regard to road transport, but we have this curious position to-day, that it is quite possible to give a grant—a free gift—from the Treasury, through the Ministry of Transport, for the construction of a road bridge, but, if it is necessary to put some works into the river in order that navigation may not be impeded by the bridge, you cannot get the grant from the Ministry of Transport. I am sure that that is not the intention. I do not know if hon. Members realise it, but the position is that, if you want to help some big construction works in connection with any form of transport, you can get a grant from the Unemployment Grants Committee, which will be deferred interest, but, if you want a free gift, if you want to do some national work which the local authorities cannot possibly do, you cannot get a free gift unless it is for road construction or in connection with road construction. One of the most im-
portant needs in the country to-day is the development of water transport. A commission reported in favour of it——

The CHAIRMAN: This Clause relates to schemes for road transport, not water transport.

Captain GUNSTON: I do not want to trespass any further, but only to call attention to the matter, because I am sure the Minister is desirous of helping all forms of transport. Many of us on these benches consider that no class in the community has any right to say how the money which is paid in taxation shall be spent, and I believe that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right when he raided the Road Fund. Personally I believe that the Road Fund ought to be abolished as a separate item, and motorists treated with the same equality as any other part of the community.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): This is a very topsy-turvy Amendment and a thoroughly upside-down Debate. As far as I can see, although most of the arguments have been in favour of restricting expenditure, the purpose of the Amendment, properly interpreted, is to widen the powers of the Minister and enable him to spend more. Under the Clause as it is submitted, the borrowing powers are restricted to schemes which are expedited on account of the existing conditions of employment. The Amendment proposes to take out the words relating to the expediting of schemes on account of the existing conditions of employment, and, as that would leave the Clause, the borrowing powers could include any construction or improvement undertaken in pursuance of schemes which would be met out of the income of the Road Fund. Under the Amendment, therefore, it would appear that all that I have to show the Treasury is that I have not got the money, and then the Treasury goes and borrows it, whereas, as the Bill is drafted, my case must rest also on the point that the schemes are expedited on account of the existing conditions of employment. I suggest that the Opposition have moved an Amendment which is a widening Amendment and have made speeches in favour of a restricting Amendment; and I would suggest that they should all ad-
journ, compare the Amendment with their speeches, and make up their minds as to what they really want to do.
The complaint to-day, apparently, is that we are going forward much too rapidly with these road schemes, that we are spending too much, that we are getting rid of the money too quickly. In all the unemployment Debates which have taken place up to this year, certainly while my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs was Lord Privy Seal, the complaint of the Conservative party as an Opposition was that we were not spending the money quickly enough. They were always asking us: How much have you spent? How many men are at work? When are you going to get rid of the money? Why do you not spend it quicker? To-day the complaint is that we are spending it too quickly. Of all the illogical, topsy-turvy Oppositions that one has ever seen, this Opposition is the last word, and I suggest that really they have not made up their minds as to what policy they would like to pursue. It was contemplated, in the Development and Roads Improvement Act, 1909, as was current economic opinion at that time, and still would be if we were not faced with abnormal conditions, that it is a good thing over years of prosperity to save your money in so far as it is not really necessary to spend it at that time, and to concentrate the expenditure in the bad years, in the years of depression; and, in fact, in the Act of 1909 it was laid down that:
In executing or making advances in respect of the execution of any work under this Act involving the employment of labour on a considerable scale, regard shall be had, so far as is reasonably practicable, to the general state and prospects of employment.
That was the policy which was laid down, and, if ever we have reached a period of depression when it is desirable to stimulate employment and to stimulate economic work, surely the present is the right time to do it. But the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did not pursue that policy at all, and I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman who was my predecessor did not pursue that policy either. My hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Vaughan) complained this afternoon that we are giving local authorities too much, but, as a matter of fact, my predecessor
gave to the County of Monmouthshire a grant which I have never given to anyone yet. He went to Monmouthshire, and they charmed him with their eloquent Welsh persuasiveness—that is assuming that Monmouthshire is a Welsh county, which is arguable—and they actually lifted from him a 100 per cent. grant for local highway improvements.

Colonel ASHLEY: Taffy was a Welshman!

Mr. MORRISON: I know, but the right hon. Gentleman ought to be above those temptations. I have been to Monmouthshire, to Glamorganshire, and, even more dangerous, to North Wales, including Carnarvonshire, and none of them have ever got away with a 100 per cent. grant from me; and yet it is complained that we are too free with the money. My trouble is to try to get away from this awkward precedent of Monmouthshire, but it is contrary to my economic and local government faith that the State should give 100 per cent. grants. It is true that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), being short of money, found that, despite these 100 per cent. grants which my predecessor was, I will not say scattering about, but giving in Monmouthshire, there was a surplus in the Road Fund, and he took it. He took £7,000,000 in one year, and £12,000,000 in another, not as a luxury element, but as a sheer raid, a sheer scoop. The right hon. Gentleman replies that it was not his fault, but our fault, because there were economic disturbances during 1926, but he might have got the money from somewhere else instead of from the Road Fund. The fact is that the right hon. Member for Epping took all the money without any principle whatever so far as road administration is concerned, and, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman who was my predecessor let him take it. He ought not to have let him take it; he ought to have stood up to him; and, if he had only stood up to the right hon. Member for Epping in the last Government, I am sure that my predecessor would have flayed him and beaten him on the question of taking all that money from the Road Fund.
The fund became practically finished. We came along and developed a road policy, not on a wasteful basis of spend-
ing money merely for the sake of spending money, but on the ground that these road and bridge improvements are necessary. I have questions every Wednesday afternoon and letters every hour of the day from hon. Members opposite asking me to spend money out of the Road Fund in aid of schemes in their constituencies, and then, in public, they come to the House and complain of me for giving them the money. That is not quite as it ought to be. The right hon. Member for Epping took the money, and, when we come to develop the biggish road programme that we have now on hand, and the bridge reconstruction programme, all of which we are convinced, although it is accelerated, is work of economic importance and betterment, the money is not there, because it was made away with by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the fight over the Road Fund he thoroughly beat my predecessor, and I am very sorry for it. The only course open to us is either to stop the works and dismiss people or not take people on, or to borrow. We are borrowing on the credit of the Road Fund, and the Road Fund will have to pay the money back. Unfortunately for it, it will have to pay interest as well to the Treasury, though it is perfectly legitimate that the Treasury should ask for it. I have no hesitation in saying that in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the cause of it is not the extravagance of the present Government; the real cause is that the fund was bankrupted, not by us, but by the right hon. Member for Epping, by the two raids, totalling £19,000,000, which he conducted some few years ago.
Some figures were given as to the actual expenditure. The five-years programme, which we are trying as far as we can to condense into the earlier years, involves an expenditure of £27,500,000, and the trunk road programme an expenditure of £21,000,000, making a total of £48,500,000. In addition to that, however, there is the expenditure on annual schemes, with which this Clause is not concerned. It is estimated that to this expenditure the Road Fund will contribute £18,500,000 on the five-years programme, and £16,000,000 on the trunk-road programme
making a total Road Fund contribution of £34,500,000, leaving £14,000,000 only for the local authorities to contribute. These grants, of course, vary; that is the average figure, and the actual grants vary from time to time.
Of course it is perfectly true that the County Councils Association would like higher grants, and that the rural authorities would like, in particular, higher grants for the unclassified roads. Road grants are based upon the sliding scale, so to speak, that in the primary, Class 1 roads there is a considerable national element, and, therefore, they get a bigger grant; that in Class 2 roads there is a lesser national element, and they get a smaller grant; while the unclassified roads are predominentry for local purposes, and represent a local responsibility, except as regards the block grant from the general Exchequer contribution and the special grants made from, time to time for purposes of reconstruction.

Colonel ASHLEY: The right hon. Gentleman says that, of the total expenditure of £48,500,000, £34,000,000 comes from the Road Fund. Can he tell me if all these schemes have been definitely accepted and passed by the local authorities, and, therefore may be taken out of the £48,500,000?

Mr. MORRISON: The answer cannot be conclusive on that point. Assuming that the programme goes on without any hitch, it will be so, and the Road Fund will find £34,500,000 and the local authorities £14,000,000. That is in respect of the trunk road programme and the five-years programme. But, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are two stages in approval; there is approval in principle and there is approval for commencement. So far, a proportion of the schemes have only been approved in principle, and, for all that we know, there may be hitches at one end or the other, and they may not get to the stage of approval for commencement.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I take it that, if a scheme which has been approved in principle does not begin on the agreed date, it falls through?

Mr. MORRISON: Yes. There is another point. We made stipulations, in the case of certain grants and some special grants, that these schemes were
for acceleration and that there must be acceleration, and that, if they were not commenced by certain dates, which we stipulated, the local authority would have "lost the bus" and the grant would not be available unless there were very special circumstances. That is the position, and will continue to be the position. Of course, this Clause of the Bill does not merely enable borrowing in respect of what are known as unemployment schemes, but I have dealt with that particular point because that was the particular point of the Amendment. The £48,500,000 figure is not necessarily over and above normal road works. There are included in the programme works which would have been done in any case.
I notice that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) thinks that the Minister of Transport is extravagant, notwithstanding the fact that we spend a good deal of time disagreeing with the local authorities on the ground that we want their schemes to be less expensive than they sometimes want them to be. The hon. Member would like the Ministry of Transport to be abolished. He can go on liking. There is no sign of that contingency at present. The Ministry is thriving and getting on very well. [Interruption.] He is a clear 100 per cent. abolitionist. I do not mind. I only note the point.
Some interesting points were raised as to competition between road and rail. It is a real and worrying problem which no Minister of Transport can ignore. I hope, when the Minister comes up against some of the problems of road versus rail in the administration of the Road Traffic Act, he will never get any criticism from hon. Members opposite when he appears to be taking a certain point of view. I am often accused of having bias, but I have none. It is my duty to look at the interests of transport as a whole. I think we have established the case for the Clause and destroyed the case for the Amendment, which is quite contrary in the result to the speeches that we have listened to. As we have had the cordial support of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Sir E. Hutchison) who was immediately afterwards in consultation with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J.
Simon), I suggest that the Committee might well give us the Clause.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. Is it not possible for a crisis to be arranged again?

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I think the Minister was a little unfair when he taunted us by saying we came to him and asked him for grants of money for our constituencies and then abused him for acquiescing and giving us the grants. He is a very fair-minded man, and I am sure he would not want to suggest that we did anything of that sort. I do not quite agree with him when he says this Amendment is, so to speak, the wrong way round. If it were passed, borrowing would be confined to the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, instead of being, as it will be with these words about unemployment in it, anchored on the problem of unemployment. We are saying to the motorists who pay large sums of money annually, "We expect you, through your direct horse-power tax, to support a certain number of unemployed who are to be employed in improving the roads and in building new roads." I am sure motorists as a whole would be only too delighted to help employment if they felt that the money was being properly spent, but I do not think that the money that is to be spent under this is to be spent in the right way or that it will do what the right hon. Gentleman thinks it will do.
I have probably covered some 200,000 or 300,000 miles in various parts of the world, and I do not agree with the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) that we should be ashamed of our roads. I think they are the best in the world. I find that large portions of our roads are being widened and others are being remade, but the period over which these improvements are being made is much too long and the number of people employed making them and altering the roads is very small indeed. If a road is going to be improved or a new road made, many more people should be put on at a time so as to get the thing done more quickly. The number of people who are actually employed as the result of this money is very small, because it is not being done in the right way.
I also contend that the money is being wasted to a large extent, because the right kind of roads are not being made.
The Minister should take into account the result of making the big by-pass roads. It is that you change the passenger traffic to a large extent from the railways on to these roads and overload them, and you have almost ruined the railways. I do not think the roads are thought out carefully enough. To take one example, at the cross roads on the Cambridge bypass road there are enormous electric lights.

The CHAIRMAN: Much of what the hon. Member is saying should properly come on the Estimate of the Ministry.

Sir W. BRASS: I submit that in explaining the inefficient way in which the money is being expended, I am in order. The money is not being properly and efficiently spent, and, therefore, I want the Amendment passed.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment does not deal with electric lights.

Sir W. BRASS: I am only giving an example of what has happened in the past, and I hope it will not happen in the future. The lights make the cross roads extremely dangerous at night, and I hope, when the right hon. Gentleman comes to spend the money, he will see that that, does not happen and that the money is spent efficiently and not inefficiently, as it was before. I can hardly believe that the 48,000 men who are directly to be employed in making these roads will result in another 48,000 being employed indirectly. I could understand it in building bridges or houses and that sort of alleviation of unemployment, but I cannot understand, when you put a certain number of people on to widening a road, that for every man who is engaged on the work you employ someone somewhere else in relief of unemployment. When we are spending this money we put a burden on the local authorities who will have to maintain these roads, and we ought to consider very carefully whether we should spend money in this way. I am most anxious to give people employment, but, in doing it in this way, through the Road Fund, you are not actually employing the number of people that you could employ if the money were diverted into other channels.

Mr. PRICE: While listening to the speeches of Members opposite complaining of the harm that is done to railways by the development of the road system, I could not help thinking of what might have happened in this House a hundred years ago when the railway systems began to come in and when those interested in horses and coaches, no doubt, objected to the revolution in transport that was coming about. We are passing through a revolution in the transport system and it is the duty of the Government in power to see that our road systems are sufficiently developed so as to be ready for the changes which must inevitably take place. It is surely clear that the local branch line railway systems are falling into decay, because it is infinitely more efficient and less wasteful for goods to be delivered from door to door from provincial towns to houses and farms than to have the uneconomic and wasteful system whereby they are delivered to a small railway station and then delivered further by a system of horses and carts and vans and small lorries. It is right that the Government should spend this money.
If I have any criticism to make, it is that they have not done enough. In my constituency we feel that sufficient attention has not been paid to road development in that area and that there is a great deal to be said for the Government giving 100 per cent. grants for Class I roads. The amount of local traffic carried on them is infinitesimal and the burden imposed on local authorities is too great. If they were relieved of the burden of maintaining the main roads taking traffic from the north and to Scotland they could pay more attention to the development of Class II and Class III roads. Hon. Members opposite may say that it is desirable at a time like this not to spend money, but to economise. I say that that is false economy. Here is a case of capital development which will, in the end, produce good results. It is penny wise and pound foolish not to be prepared for the inevitable revolution in transport which is developing. It is bound to develop. If the Government of the day do not lay out their plans accordingly, they will retard rather than assist the industrial development which this country will have to carry through if it is to keep abreast of the times.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 199.

Division No. 340.]
AYES.
[5.47 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McShane, John James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thamptes)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.
Groves, Thomas E.
Manning, E. L.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mansfield, W.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
March, S.


Angell, Sir Norman
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marcus, M.


Arnott, John
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marley, J.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Marshall, Fred


Ayles, Walter
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mathers, George


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Harbord, A.
Matters, L. W.


Burnes, Alfred John
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Maxton, James


Barr, James
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Messer, Fred


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Millar, J. D.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mills, J. E.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Haycock, A. W.
Montague, Frederick


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hayday, Arthur
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Benson, G.
Hayes, John Henry
Morley, Ralph


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Bilndell, James
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bowen, J. W.
Harriotts, J.
Mort, D. L.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hicks, Ernest George
Muff, G.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Murnin, Hugh


Bromfield, William
Hoffman, P. C.
Naylor, T. E.


Bromley, J.
Hollins, A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brooke, W.
Hopkin, Daniel
Noel Baker, P. J.


Brothers, M.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Oldfield, J. R.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Buchanan, G.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Palin, John Henry


Burgess, F. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palmer, E. T.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Calne, Hall, Derwent
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jonas, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Pole, Major D. G.


Chater, Daniel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.


Clarke, J. S.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Price, M. P.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Pybus, Percy John


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kelly, W. T.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cove, William G.
Kinley, J.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cowan, D. M.
Kirkwood, D.
Raynes, W. R.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Knight, Holford
Richards, R.


Daggar, George
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dalton, Hugh
Lang, Gordon
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Ritson, J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Day, Harry
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawrence, Susan
Romerll, H. G.


Devlin, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rothschild, J. de


Dukes, C.
Leach, W.
Rowson, Guy


Duncan, Charles
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Ede, James Chuter
Lees, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Edmunds, J. E.
Leonard, W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwallty)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Egan, W. H.
Llndley, Fred W.
Sanders, W. S.


England, Colonel A.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sandham, E.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Sawyer, G. F.


Foot, Isaac
Longbottom, A. W.
Scurr, John


Freeman, Peter
Longden, F.
Sexton, Sir James


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, K.)
Lunn, William
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shield, George William


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
McElwee, A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gilt, T. H.
McEntee, V. L.
Shinwell, E.


Glassey, A. E.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gossling, A. G.
McKinlay, A.
Simmons, C. J.


Gould, F.
MacLaren, Andrew
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Win, (Edin., Cent.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sinkinson, George


Gray, Milner
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sitch, Charles H.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Tinker, John Joseph
Westwood, Joseph


Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Tout, W. J.
White, H. G.


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Townend, A. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon Sir Charles
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Vaughan, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Viant, S. P.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Sorensen, R.
Walkden, A. G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Walker, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Stephen, Campbell
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Strauss, G. R.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sullivan, J.
Watkins, F. C.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Sutton, J. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah



Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wellock, Wilfred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thurtle, Ernest
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.


Tillett, Ben
West, F. R.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Muirhead, A. J.


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Ferguson, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fermoy, Lord
O'Neill, Sir H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fielden, E. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Astor, Viscountess
Ford, Sir P. J.
Penny, Sir George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balniel, Lord
Ganzonl, Sir John
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Beaumont, M. W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gower, Sir Robert
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Remer, John R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Boyce, Leslie
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ross, Ronald D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Farnham)


Buchan, John
Hammersley, S. S.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hanbury, C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Savery, S. S.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Butler, R. A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Haslam, Henry C.
Skelton, A. N.


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smithers, Waldron


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Somerset, Thomas


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hurd, Percy A.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Iveagh, Countess of
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thompson, Luke


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thomson, Sir F.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thomson, Mitchell-. Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Cranborne, Viscount
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Train, J.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Turton, Robert Hugh


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lymington, Viscount
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, s.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wells, Sydney R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Withers, Sir John James




Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Womersley, W. J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Captain Margesson and Sir Victor Warrender.

Motion made, and Question put, The "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Committee divided; Ayes, 281; Noes, 204.

Division No. 341.]
AYES.
[5.58 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gossling, A. G.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff-, Cannock)
Gould, F.
McKinlay, A.


Altchison. Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacLaren, Andrew


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Ammon, Charles George
Gray, Milner
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Angell, Sir Norman
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Arnott, John
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Aske, Sir Robert
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McShane, John James


Ayles, Walter
Groves, Thomas E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Manning, E. L.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mansfield, W.


Barr, James
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
March, S.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth. C.)
Markham, S. F.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Marley, J.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Marshall, Fred


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Harbord, A.
Mathers, George


Benson, G.
Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Matters, L. W.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Maxton, James


Bilndell, James
Haycock, A. W.
Messer, Fred


Bondfield, Rt. Han. Margaret
Hayday, Arthur
Millar, J. D.


Bowen, J. W.
Hayes, John Henry
Mills. J. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Montague, Frederick


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morley, Ralph


Bromfield, William
Harriotts, J.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Bromley, J.
Hicks, Ernest George
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Brooke, W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brothers, M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mort, D. L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hoffman, p. C.
Muff, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hollins, A.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Buchanan, G
Hopkin, Daniel
Murnin, Hugh


Burgess, F. G.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Naylor, T. E.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Calne, Halt-, Derwent
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Noel Baker, P. J.


Cameron, A. G.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Oldfield, J. R.


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Palin, John Henry


Chater, Daniel
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Palmer, E. T.


Clarke, J. S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cluse, W. S.
Jonas, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Compton, Joseph
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Pole, Major D. G.


Cove, William G.
Kelly, W. T.
Potts, John S.


Cowan, D. M.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Price, M. P.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kinley. J.
Pybus, Percy John


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, D.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Dalton, Hugh
Knight, Holford
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lang, Gordon
Raynes, W. R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Richards, R.


Day, Harry
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Devlin, Joseph
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawrence, Susan
Ritson, J.


Dukes, C.
Lawson, John James
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Duncan, Charles
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Ede, James Chuter
Leach, W.
Romerll, H. G.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lees, J.
Rothschild, J. de


Egan, W. H.
Leonard, W.
Rowson, Guy


Elmley, Viscount
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


England, Colonel A.
Lindley, Fred W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Foot, Isaac
Logan, David Gilbert
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Freeman, Peter
Longbottom, A. W.
Sanders, W. S.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Longden, F.
Sandham, E.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sawyer, G. F.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Lunn, William
Scurr, John


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sexton, Sir James


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston).


Gill, T. H.
McElwee, A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Glassey, A. E.
McEntee, V. L.
Shield, George William


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Sutton, J. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Shillakar, J. F.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Shinwell, E.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
West, F. R.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Westwood, Joseph


Simmons. C. J.
Thurtle, Ernest
White, H. G


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Tillett, Ben
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Sinkinson, George
Tinker, John Joseph
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Sitch, Charles H.
Tout, W. J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Townend, A. E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B.(Keighley)
Vaughan, David
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Walkden, A. G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Walker, J.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester. Loughb'gh)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wallace, H. W.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Sorensen, R.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Watkins, F. C.



Stephen, Campbell
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Strauss, G. R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.


Sullivan, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Eden, Captain Anthony
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major Walter E
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ferguson, Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fermoy, Lord
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Astor, Viscountess
Fielden, E. B.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Muirhead, A. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)


Beaumont, M. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
O'Connor, T. J.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Ganzonl, Sir John
O'Neill, Sir H.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Penny, Sir George


Bird, Ernest Roy
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gower, Sir Robert
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Boyce, Leslie
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brass, Captain Sir William
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Briscoe, Richard George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ramsbotham, H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Buchan, John
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Remer, John R.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hammersley, S. S.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hanbury, C.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Butler, R. A
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hartington, Marquess of
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ross, Ronald D.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Haslam, Henry C.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm-, W.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'deworth, Putney)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Chapman, Sir S.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Savery, S. S.


Christle, J. A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Skelton, A. N.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Colville, Major D. J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smithers, Waldron


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Somerset, Thomas


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Iveagh, Countess of
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Thompson, Luke


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Thomson, Sir F.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lymington, Viscount
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Train, J.




Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Turton, Robert Hugh
Welle, Sydney R.
Womersley, W. J.


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Warrender, Sir Victor
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Withere, Sir John James
Captain Margesson and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

CLAUSE 32.—(Collectors of taxes and collectors of land tax.)

Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 35, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that no collector of taxes appointed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall distrain in respect of the tax due and payable under any assessment except with the consent of the general commissioners for his area or division.

Captain BOURNE: On a point of Order. May I respectfully draw attention to the fact that on this Clause, at the bottom of page 34, words are printed in italics, and that the only Financial Resolution we have had dealing with the expenses of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue is strictly limited to
any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or remuneration payable in connection with any valuation of land for the purposes of any tax on land value charged under any Act of the present Session relating to finance.
There was a previous Ruling of yours last year, Sir Robert, which I do not want to quote at length, in which you said that when words are in italics they cannot be put from the Chair unless a Resolution has been passed by the House giving validity to those words. I should like to know whether you will put this Clause with or without the words in italics?

The CHAIRMAN: Usually when the words of a Clause are in italics, it is an indication that those words are covered by a Money Resolution. In this case I have looked into the matter and I find that the Money Resolution covers the land taxes and the other part of the Clause is covered by a Section in the Income Tax Act. It is the habit or, rather, it has been the custom of the Public Bill Office, whenever there has been a doubt, to put the words into italics in case it is found afterwards that it is necessary to have a Money Resolution. In this case the words were put in italics but italics are not necessary. The Public Bill Office have
since made a correction in the Table copy, but to save the expense of reprinting the alteration has not been made in the other copies.

Captain BOURNE: I understand that in the Table copy these words are not in italics.

The CHAIRMAN: They have corrected the Table copy by a note indicating that the words should be in Roman type, but to save printing the words are not put in Roman in the other copies.

Captain BOURNE: I thank you. In view of the Ruling that you gave last year that italicised words without a Financial Resolution are not visible to the Chair, it is a matter of great inconvenience to Members of the Committee when the information which you have now given to us is not made available to the House as well as to you. We look at the Financial Resolution and we see these words in italics, and we, not unnaturally, assume that these words cannot, in point of fact, be put from the Chair. We were not aware of the fact, because we do not see the Table copy, that the alteration had been made in the Table copy, which, of course, is the official copy and the one by which you are bound. I would ask for your guidance whether something cannot be done so that when these alterations are made in future a notice may be given to the House similar to that given to the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that it is not within my competence to give an instruction of that kind. That practice has been adopted in the past. For instance, in connection with the Local Government Bill in 1928–29 the same thing occurred. There was a Clause partly printed in italics which was found not to be covered by the Money Resolution. No new Money Resolution was introduced, but the Clause was amended to agree with the original Money Resolution. The Public Bill Office have erred on the side of caution by putting the words in italics and not in Roman. It is probably better that as a precaution the Bill should be over-italicised than not, and
thus save expenditure in reprinting and avoid delay in the progress of a Bill.

Mr. HANNON: The Amendment which stands in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) will soften the effect of Clause 32, if it becomes law, in relation to the collection of Income Tax in many districts. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present, because I should like to make a special appeal to him in relation to this matter. The long established custom in relation to the collection of Income Tax, under the Act of 1842, has been that those who were assessable for Income Tax were assessed and the tax was collected under the neighbourly consideration of the General Commissioners, the position being that those responsible for the collection locally should have intimate knowledge, as far as possible, of the people pursuing their avocations, before they became assessable for tax. The General Commissioners in the 750 districts of the country have been unpaid bodies who have discharged their many duties with great efficiency and great success for a long period of years. The effect of the Clause will be, unless the proviso that I am seeking to insert can be accepted, to relieve the General Commissioners of any function.
The whole purpose of the Clause is to leave the assessment and collection of Income Tax entirely under the control of the Accountant-General of the Board of Inland Revenue. That is obviously the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would recall the fact that when the Revenue Bill was introduced some years ago there was a very strong, feeling manifested throughout the country that these powers should not be conferred on any central authority, and after a good deal of exchange of views on all sides of the House the Bill was withdrawn. The assessments made in future will inevitably come under the control of the central department if this Clause becomes part of the Bill. During all the time that the General Commissioners have been carrying on their duties I do not think there has been a single complaint as to the way in which they have discharged the obligations imposed upon them in connection with the collection of taxes. There have been rare cases of complaint of under-
assessment, and very rare cases of complaint of under-collection.
All the work with which they are charged, including the hearing of appeals and the examination of local cases of difficulty, has been carried out with a kindly spirit and in the interests of the State and the taxpayer, and if this machinery is removed and you bring into operation a central authority, with all the paraphernalia of officialdom and bureaucracy, great injury will be inflicted on the taxpayer and upon the State by the feeling of antagonism which will be aroused in the mind of the taxpayer that he is not to have that consideration and sympathy which he has had from those who understand his local conditions. The object of the Amendment is to ask that a distraint for the non-payment of taxes shall not become operative without the approval of the general commissioners. Sub-section (3) of this Clause says:
There shall be delivered by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to every collector of taxes, whether appointed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or otherwise, a warrant for collecting and levying the tax charged, and every such warrant shall extend to the collection of the sums specified in all duplicates of assessment which may from time to time be delivered to the collector, and to any arrears of tax due at the date of the warrant.
That means that when a collector receives a warrant he is bound to distrain, and there is no means by which the general commissioners may intervene in order to prevent what may be a great injustice being inflicted upon the taxpayer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles; when he smiles, he is very dangerous. I think I am correctly interpreting the Clause as it stands. Everybody acquainted with the collection of Income Tax knows that people are not able to discharge payment at the moment, and there may be a question as to the justice of the assessment. The general commissioners were always available, and their services were always utilised to the advantage of the State and of the applicant who may be temporarily embarrassed. In the case of the Rent Restrictions Act a landlord cannot enforce a distraint without the authority of the county court, and all we are asking in this Amendment is that there should be some intervening authority who will
prevent action being taken before the collector distrains against the taxpayer. I hope it will not be out of place for me to say a few words on the general effect of the Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must keep to his Amendment.

Mr. HANNON: That may mean more speeches when the Clause comes before the Committee, but I will only say this, that to endow the local collector of taxes with a power to distrain against a taxpayer whose circumstances may be peculiarly difficult at the moment, is not a power which ought to appeal to the Committee. We have had an overdose of bureaucracy for many years; all parties have been guilty alike. Bureaucracy ought not to be so buttressed and strengthened as to enable it to inflict distinct hardship upon the taxpayer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has clung with phenomenal tenacity to the old traditions of the Act of 1846. We are pleading for the principles of the Act of 1842 and, therefore, I hope he will respect those principles just as much as he respects the principles of the Act of 1846. The whole Clause is objectionable, and if it is to become part of our administration we want the taxpayer to be protected against what may be an act of cruelty on the part of officialdom. Moreover, if the Clause becomes effective, it is all the more necessary that the general commissioners should have the power to intervene, because the taxpayer may be placed in a position where a distraint may be executed without his having a single opportunity of protesting against his assessment. I hope the Committee will regard this Amendment as an act of justice to the taxpayers of this country, whose interests have been jealously guarded by the general commissioners for generations past.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The hon. Member's speech is based upon a misapprehension of the existing state of things. He seems to assume that in those districts which are not centralised and where the collectors are appointed by the general commissioners, the taxpayer cannot be distrained upon without the authority of the general com-missioners. That is not the case. The hon. Member quoted the words of the
Clause about the appointment by warrant of the tax collectors. That is precisely the nature of their appointment to-day. They are appointed by this warrant; and by the warrant they are instructed to collect these amounts. There is no appeal at the present time by the collector to the general commissioners before a warrant for distraint is issued. The hon. Member in his concluding words said that a person may be called upon to pay without being given any opportunity to make a further protest. The method of procedure is very generous indeed. The taxpayer gets a first notice, and then he gets a second demand note, and the general practice, after the issue of the second demand note and where no payment has been made, is for the collector to make a personal call upon him. As a matter of fact, the greatest consideration is shown to the taxpayer, and in no case is a warrant for distraint issued or a person brought into court until every chance has been given him to make payment. The collector proceeds without approaching the general commissioners at all. He acts under his general warrant.
After the second notice the taxpayer is given a final notice and allowed further time in which to make payment. Then, again, it is the general practice of the collectors in the centralised districts, as well as in those under the control of the general commissioners, not to proceed to final action until a further personal call has been made on the defaulting taxpayer and an inquiry made into his circumstances. In no case does the collector proceed to distrain or prosecute without consulting the local inspector of taxes in order to be sure that there is no appeal lodged against the assessment, and that there is no outstanding complaint against the amount of the assessment. Therefore, if the Clause is passed, the practice will be exactly that which takes place at the present time, and the taxpayer will have exactly the same protection that he now enjoys. I must, however, enter a protest against these constant aspersions upon the conduct of collectors of taxes. They are quite unwarranted. When you have millions of taxpayers concerned it is quite possible that occasionally a case may arise where there has been an apparent but unintentional conduct on the part of the collector which may be regarded as
harsh, but upon the whole the generosity shown to taxpayers in unfortunate circumstances, and the general way in which the taxes of the country are collected, is a credit to the hearts as well as to the heads of the collectors.

Mr. HANNON: I made no aspersions against the collectors of taxes. I was referring to the attitude of a collector of taxes acting under a bureaucracy, which the right hon. Gentleman wants to set up by this Bill.

Mr. SNOWDEN: It is well known to those who have taken an interest in these matters that at the present time the collection of taxes is in the hands of the Commissioners in Scotland. That is so in Northern Ireland also, and in nearly a score of the larger centres in this country, and you would not find a Scotsman who would be willing to change the system which has been in operation in Scotland for generations for the system which now exists in other parts of England. But I must protest against the discrimination that has been made between the centralised officers and those who are appointed by the general commissioners.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite appreciates the point which lies behind the Amendment. It is true that at present no such power as is asked for by this Amendment exists. I speak as a general commissioner, and I feel that there is very little ground for taking away the power they have of appointing and dismissing these collectors. If, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to do that I do not think it is a matter of such tremendous importance, but there is, rightly or wrongly, a widespread feeling of distrust of the central organisation in regard to the Board of Inland Revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it is unjustifiable, and has protested against it. I am not quarrelling with him on that point, but the fact remains that there is this feeling of distrust, and with taxation as high as it is at the present time everything should be done to keep the goodwill of the taxpayer who has to pay these high taxes. When this proposal was first mooted I was surprised to find the strong feeling in favour of some such power as is proposed by the Amend-
ment being given to the general commissioners, and I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be an act of grace, and one well worth doing, if he accepted the Amendment.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I do not think that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment really conveyed the suggestion with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer credited him. It is obvious from the Acts which govern the matter that the rights of the taxpayer under this Bill and as they exist under the law are absolutely parallel. It is the rule at present that the collector can levy distress without any further authority from the Commissioners than a warrant for that purpose delivered to him on his appointment. It occurred to me when that statement was made that that was a very grave power to give to a collector of taxes. But it could be mitigated by the reflection that the collector has had it for 40 or 50 years, and, as far as I know, no particular hardship has been felt by the taxpayer. That is the present position. The rights of the taxpayer and of the collector to levy distress are the same as they have been for 40 years and are not affected by this Bill. But the practice will be affected by this Bill, despite what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. If it were not so the object of taxation of this kind would be surely not so much to secure a condition of affairs in which the taxpayer in practice has no grievance, as a condition of affairs in which under the law the taxpayer can have no grievance. That is the distinction which I am glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer appreciates.
As the Bill proposes to change the law the collector can, as he has done hitherto, levy a distress on a warrant which he will receive from the Inland Revenue, from the central authority, instead of from the local authority. Whatever may be the result, the taxpayer himself will certainly not feel the same security and the same possibility of generous treatment as He has felt in the past. The Chancellor says that the local commissioners never have anything to do with these distress warrants, that in no circumstances are they approached by the collectors as to whether or not a distress warrant should be issued. I am surprised to hear that statement. I should have thought that
when a collector was in doubt as to whether or not to issue a distress warrant, he would approach the local commissioners. They have the local knowledge; they know the circumstances in which a man is situated; they know whether it is a genuine case of misfortune or whether it is a deliberate desire to keep back money from the Revenue. If it is not the duty of the collectors to consult the local commissioners it is high time it was made their practice.
My hon. Friend quoted the analogy of the Rent Restriction Acts, under which a landlord cannot issue a distraint without the consent of the county court. I believe there is a similar feature in the Income Tax Act, where, in police proceedings for summary recovery, the proceedings cannot take effect without the consent of the magistrates. In this case it seems to me that the Amendment will put the law on precisely the same footing. These distresses should not issue without the assent of a man's fellow citizens, who know his position and the local circumstances. For these reasons I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will turn a friendly gaze upon the Amendment. I assume that the Amendment to follow will not be successful, in spite of the rather kindly expression on the Chancellor's countenance. But whether successful or

not this Amendment has a great deal of common sense and equity to recommend it.

The weapon of distress is a terrible weapon. It is a most drastic weapon, almost a mediaeval weapon. It is possible to go into a man's house, to take his furniture, and to sell it to the highest bidder. Under the Taxes Management Act I read that the Commissioners can actually give a warrant to the collector to break a house open in the daytime for the purpose of satisfying the demand of the Inland Revenue. It is a very severe weapon and should be used only with the greatest care. I am not satisfied that the collectors of Income Tax, even if it is the existing law, should, on the bare possession of a warrant, be able to exercise this distress without reference to the commissioners or anyone else. The taxpayer has a right to further protection than he has at present or than he has had for 20 or 30 years. Under the Bill not only do we appeal to the judge, but the judge is also the executioner and has a direct interest in the process of the execution.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 267.

Division No. 342.]
AYES.
[6.37 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ferguson, Sir John


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fermoy, Lord


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm. W.)
Fielden, E. B.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Chapman, Sir S.
Fison, F. G. Clavering


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Christle, J. A.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.


Astor, Viscountess
Colfox, Major William Philip
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Colville, Major D. J.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Atkinson, C.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cowan, D. M.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Cranborne, Viscount
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Balniel, Lord
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Beaumont, M. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bilndell, James
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Boyce, Leslie
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bracken, B.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hammersley, S. S.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hanbury, C.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hartington, Marquess of


Briscoe, Richard George
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Haslam, Henry C.


Brawn, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
England, Colonel A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Butler, R. A.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Campbell, E. T.
Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Somerset, Thomas


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Hunt, Sir Gerald B.
O'Connor, T. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
O'Neill. Sir H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Inskip, Sir Thomas
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Iveagh, Countess of
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Penny, Sir George
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Perkins, W. R. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Lamb, Sir J. O.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thompson, Luke


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Thomson, Sir F.


Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pybus, Percy John
Train, J.


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Remer, John R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wells, Sydney R.


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Ross, Ronald D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Marjoribanks, Edward
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Millar, J. D.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Withers, Sir John James


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Sassoon. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Savery, S. S.
Womersley, W. J.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)



Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Mr. Hannon and Mr. Ramsbotham.


Muirhead, A. J.
Smithers, Waldron



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Dalton, Hugh
Harris, Percy A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Haycock, A. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hayday, Arthur


Angell, Sir Norman
Day, Harry
Hayes, John Henry


Arnott, John
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Aske, Sir Robert
Devlin, Joseph
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Ayles, Walter
Dukes, C.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Duncan, Charles
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Barnes, Alfred John
Ede, James Chuter
Herriotts, J.


Barr, James
Edge, Sir William
Hicks, Ernest George


Batey, Joseph
Edmunds, J. E.
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hoffman, P. C.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Egan, W. H.
Hollins, A.


Benson, G.
Elmley, viscount
Hopkin, Daniel


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Foot, Isaac.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Freeman, Peter
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Bowen, J. W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Broad, Francis Alfred
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Brockway, A. Fenner
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Bromfield, William
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)


Bromley, J.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brooke, W.
Gill, T. H.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brothers, M.
Gillett, George M.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Glassey, A. E.
Kelly, W. T.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gossling, A. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Buchanan, G.
Gould, F.
Kinley, J.


Burgess, F. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kirkwood, D.


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Knight, Holford


Cameron, A. G.
Gray, Milner
Lang, Gordon


Cape, Thomas
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Charleton, H. C.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Chater, Daniel
Groves, Thomas E.
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Clarke, J. S.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lawrence, Susan


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C)
Leach, W.


Compton, Joseph
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Cove, William G
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Lees, J.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Harbord, A.
Leonard, W.


Daggar, George
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)




Lindley, Fred W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Logan, David Gilbert
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Sorensen, R.


Longbottom, A. W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Stamford, Thomas W.


Longden, F.
Pole, Major D. G.
Stephen, Campbell


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Potts, John S.
Strauss, G. R.


Lunn, William
Price, M. P.
Sullivan, J.


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Quibell, D. F. K.
Sutton, J. E.


Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


McElwee, A.
Raynes, W. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


McEntee, V. L.
Richards, R.
Tillett, Ben


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tinker, John Joseph


McKinlay, A.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Tout, W. J.


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Riley, F. F. (Stackton-on-Tees)
Townend, A. E.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Ritson, J.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


McShane, John James
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Vaughan, David


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Romerll, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Manning, E. L.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Walkden, A. G.


Mansfield, W.
Rothschild, J. de
Walker, J.


March, S.
Rowson, Guy
Wallace, H. W.


Markham, S. F.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watkins, F. C.


Marley, J.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Marshall, Fred
Sanders, W. S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Mathers, George
Sandham, E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Matters, L. W.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Maxton, James
Scurr, John
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Messer, Fred
Sexton, Sir James
West, F. R.


Mills, J. E.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Westwood, Joseph


Milner, Major J.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
White, H. G.


Montague, Frederick
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Morley, Ralph
Sherwood, G. H.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Shield, George William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Mort, D. L.
Shillaker, J. F.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Muff, G.
Shinwell, E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Muggeridge, H. T.
Simmons, C. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Murnin, Hugh
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Naylor, T. E.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Noel Baker, P. J.
Sinkinson, George
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Oldfield, J. R.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wise, E. F.


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)



Palin, John Henry
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Palmer, E. T.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Mr. Paling and Mr. Thurtle.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. HANNON: I am sorry that I must detain the Committee a little longer in opposing the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." This Clause is an attempt to establish a sheer autocracy, on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The present Socialist administration has been remarkable for many acts of autocracy in its direction of public affairs since it came into office, but this assumption of complete control through the Accountant-General and the. Board of Inland Revenue, over the fortunes of the taxpayers of the country is an act of autocracy which will stand alone even in their bad record. The President of the Board of Trade took a very active, constructive and helpful part in the deliberations of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, and he will recall that in that Commission's recommendations, it was agreed that the In
come Tax commissioners should remain, and that in rural districts at all events, in the collection of Income Tax the practice which had obtained for a long period should not be disturbed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, truly, on the previous Amendment that a collector could distrain and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) has quoted the Taxes Management Act to that effect, but the actual practice for more than two generations has been that the collector did not distrain without the approval of the general commissioners, and a universal understanding of give and take, had been set up between the commissioners and the Income Tax payers, which made the collection easier and more comfortable both to the State and the taxpayer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposes that the Accountant General and the Board of Inland Revenue shall become autocrats par excellence in relation to the collection of Income Tax. He is going to disturb the friendly re-
lations which have existed for so long, and to introduce the methods of Civil Service administration in the collection of taxes. He claimed, no doubt quite rightly, that in those districts in which the collection of taxes is now under the direction of the Board of Inland Revenue there has been little or no complaint, but what we fear is that, if the Board gets control of the whole administration, methods of Civil Service bureaucracy will be introduced into every part of the country. The system of tax collection contemplated in this Clause cannot be carried out without a large scheme of centralisation and the taxpayer in rural areas will be placed in the inconvenient position of having to find access as best he can to a taxing authority in a selected centre. I think that will be a most unfortunate arrangement particularly in the case of the small Income Tax payer.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the taxpayer at present had all the means of adjusting his relations with the collector and had no trouble whatever in that respect. I wonder whether that state of things will continue when the whole machinery of collection is directed by a Civil Service bureaucracy. That is the real fear in the minds of many of us who regard this Clause as reactionary and as against the best interests of the State itself.

Mr. SANDHAM: There can be no pleasure without pain.

Mr. HANNON: I do not understand the significance of that interruption unless the hon. Member wants to travel a long distance in order to adjust Income Tax difficulties with his local collector. Probably, if he has to travel several miles in order to adjust his assessment or plead his case for postponement of payment, he will find that a little pain will have to be endured before he can reach a settlement. Many of us feel strongly on this subject and there has been a great deal of correspondence for many weeks past with regard to it. I make no complaint at all against the collectors of taxes or against the collection of taxes in the districts under the direct control of the Inland Revenue, but in all rural areas there is a wholesome dread of coming under the control of a bureaucratic machine which will treat the individual taxpayer with in- 
difference to his personal welfare and will disregard accommodations which may have been established, in regard to the payment of taxes and which are so essential, especially to small industries, small firms and individuals. It is our plain duty here to protect the rights of the smaller units of our commonwealth and the rights of individual citizens, and to prevent any enlargement of the inroads of bureaucracy. For reasons of justice and fair play, and appealing to the practice of the past as a justification for its continuance, we feel strongly that this Clause ought not to be embodied in the Bill.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I wish to speak on this matter from the point of view of a general commissioner in a widely scattered agricultural district. The proposal of this Clause, to substitute for the local collectors and assessors we have known for so long a new class of civil servant, is one involving a great change in our system of Income Tax collection in the rural areas. There can be no doubt that a great deal of that local touch, which has been of such great value in the past to the Inland Revenue, will of necessity be lost if the proposal is carried out. If a man in a rural area wishes to see the local inspector it means a considerable journey. If he wishes to see his local collector he will find that official in his own home village, and that applies to a large number of willing taxpayers—willing in so far as their ability permits them to be willing. They may now have to travel great distances and give up a great deal of time which probably they can ill afford, in order to have some small adjustment made in their assessments or to ask for some postponement of payment. I believe that the Inland Revenue will be the loser by the change.
It is not as if there were any charge or complaint against the honesty or efficiency of the local collectors. I understand that it is an accepted fact that the way in which they do their work is beyond reproach and that their integrity stands comparison with that of anybody in any branch of the Civil Service. Had it been possible to prove to this Committee that the collection had been inefficient, that there had been undue defalcations or anything of that sort, there might have been ground for the proposed change, but no charge of that sort has been brought against the local collectors
at all either here, or, as far as I am aware, in any other place. Therefore there is no good reason for the change on that ground. Why, then, is it proposed? There must be some purpose, some sort of guiding force behind the proposal. I can see only one reason for it. Bureaucracy is like an octopus. It cannot tolerate any part-time servants of the State hovering, so to speak, on the fringe of the bureaucratic machine. It must stretch out its tentacles and absorb within itself everybody who has any direct or indirect connection with it. That is, perhaps, natural, and were I a bureaucrat—which Heaven forbid—I daresay I should share that view, but being an individual representing, I hope, the thought of a great many individuals, certainly in my own constituency, I can say that we value very highly the fact that we as taxpayers have some local administration connected with both the assessment and the collection of this tax. It is impossible for anybody ever to speak highly enough of the Civil Service in my view, but it should be remembered that the Civil Service is the servant and not the master of the community. This change may seem small and possibly unimportant, yet it invades a fundamental principal which has obtained in our Income Tax administration for generations, and because it invades that principle I shall vote against this Clause standing part of the Bill.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I wish to ask a question. In the last lines of Sub-section (2) of this Clause there occur the words:
and shall be paid such remuneration as the Treasury may determine.
What does the word "such" mean in that connection? Then I notice that Subsection (6) of the Clause provides:
This Section so far as it relates to collectors of taxes shall be construed as one with the Income Tax Acts.
7.0 p.m.
Evidently there has been some oversight in the drafting of the Clause, because I observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has an Amendment on page 2239 of the Paper to the Third Schedule which relates to enactments repealed, proposing to insert after 87, the words "Sub-section (1) of." I turn to the Third Schedule, and I find there repealed, Section 88 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, and there, I think, there must again have been
a mistake. There is no Section 87, "Subsection (1)" of the Income Tax Act, 1918. If Section 87 of the 1918 Act is referred to, it deals with the remuneration of collectors and not with the limitation. Is there not some drafting error? Why Section 87? Unless something else is intended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think that what is meant is Sub-section (2) of Section 88, which reads:
The aggregate amount of the remuneration of an assessor or collector. … shall in no case exceed the sum of one thousand pounds.
We cannot let the words "such remuneration" without limitation remain in the Clause as it stands, in any case. But, if the Clause is to be amended there should be some reference made, either in the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on page 2239, or in the Third Schedule, to Section 88, Sub-section (2) of the Income Tax Act of 1918. I am not being hostile or provocative, and I suggest that better than that would be to put, in Clause 32, the words:
but limited by the terms of Section 88, Sub-section (2) of the Act of 1918.
Provided the Chancellor of the Exchequer really means to limit the remuneration in accordance with the terms of that Subsection, he should say so, to make it clear in the body of Clause 32.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I hope the Committee will accept this Clause and that nobody will ever think, from anything I have done in public life or otherwise, that I have the smallest sympathy with bureaucracy. I have a strong feeling, however, that those who serve the State and who do an essential service of an important character should have a definite and defined position, and that that position should be one of certainty commensurate with responsibility. We have been extremely fortunate in our history that matters of this kind have been conducted as well as they have been in the past, but it is impossible for any-one to say, looking at the system in a business way, that our present system of appointment of collectors of Income Tax and the system under which they hold their office is in any way a satisfactory one in a business country. I hope that we shall not hear on occasions of this kind, where there is no justification for it, any suggestion of
autocracy or bureaucracy or abuses of that kind. Everyone, who has had anything to do with the administration of Income Tax or has seen anything of its administration, knows that those who are the servants of the State and responsible for this administration are extremely kindly and long-suffering people. If I may give another illustration, one would very much rather, in most cases have to deal with an appeal before the special commissioners of Income Tax, who, after all, are servants of the State than before the general commissioners. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly, that is my experience and it is the experience of most members of my profession who have ever had to deal with appeals of this kind. I hope that we shall keep this Debate free from exaggeration and give deserving servants of the State a status they ought long ago to have had.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I hope the Committee will take the advice of the hon. and learned Member and deal with this question from a business point of view. I make no reflection at all upon the local collectors, either in regard to their honesty or to the way in which they treat the taxpayers, but the system itself is quite unsatisfactory. The commissioners of Inland Revenue referred to are bound by the terms of their appointment to be responsible to the Crown for the collection of the King's taxes, and it therefore follows that the collection of those taxes should be in the hands of those directly responsible to them. There are at the present time something like 3,000 local tax collectors, and about 750 of these are under the direct control of the commissioners of Inland Revenue. About 2,000 of these local collectors are part-time collectors. In the case of half of this number the remuneration does not exceed £l a week. However anxious these men may be to perform their duties efficiently, you cannot get men of great efficiency for a remuneration like that. A great many of them are very old, 10 per cent. of them are over 70 years of age, and their ages run as high as 86. In the absence of Civil Service pensions, of adequate remuneration for their services, and of any provision for them, they hang on long beyond the time that they are able to do their work as efficiently as younger men.
Two of the hon. Members, who have spoken from the other side, have raised the old bogy of bureaucracy. So far as bureaucracy is concerned, I cannot see the difference between a Government official, who is appointed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and an official to do the same work who is appointed by somebody else. It is quite a popular thing to object to some proposal on the ground that it is going to extend the tyranny of bureaucracy, but the hon. Member, who emphasised that point, completely gave his case away. After he had been adumbrating the evils which would follow from handing over these appointments to a bureaucratic collector, he went on to say that he had no complaint to make about the way the collection was carried on in those districts already under a central authority. It is very well to put forward these fears. We cannot argue those fears. The only thing one can say is that one does not believe they will ever materialise. I have just as much justification for saying that I am certain, when the change is made, the interests of the taxpayer will receive just as much consideration as they do in existing circumstances, as the hon. Member has for anticipating all these terrible pains and penalties that are going to be inflicted upon the taxpayer by heartless bureaucracy.
When I was on my feet before, I mentioned that this had been the practice for generations in Scotland and that there were no complaints. I have received from accountants in Scotland, while this matter has been under public notice, letters expressing the highest appreciation of the system as it exists in Scotland and saying that, on no consideration, would they have any change in that system. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) referred to letters which appeared in the Press on this subject. I was amazed at the practical absence of any correspondence at all on this subject. It is true that a few clerk's of the local general commissioners have written to the "Times" newspaper. One can well understand that this will take away a certain amount of patronage that the local commissioners have at the present time. May I point out one further objection to the existing system, that these men are appointed locally. I do not want to insinuate for
a moment that the local commissioners are abusing their patronage, but, especially in small rural districts, the friends of the commissioners must necessarily be appointed because everybody knows everybody there. What happens sometimes? A farmer is appointed a part-time man, or a local auctioneer or a local grocer is appointed. When I was a boy, the local collector of taxes in my village was the local grocer and he was quite incapable of doing the work. He did not understand it and he came to me and, as a matter of fact, although I was not sworn to secrecy, I did the whole of his work for him.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: And you did it very well.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: That is what happens. There is an objection, which I am quite sure hon. Members will appreciate, to having a man, who is in the same business as the people from whom he has to collect taxes, put in a position to know their private affairs. There would be very great advantages from the taxpayer's point of view in having this centralised Civil Service—this bureaucracy if you like—in charge of the collection. In the first place, there will be a separate office to which the taxpayer can go and make inquiries. I have already said that under this system the status of the collectors would be greatly improved. They would be put in Civil Service positions, and there is another important point from the collectors' point of view. There is no chance of promotion now under this system of appointment by the general commissioners. A man cannot, as a rule, go outside his own district. If he is appointed to a local position, he is stuck there for the rest of his life. If he was a civil servant, then he could look forward to a career and the most efficient men could naturally go ahead and look forward to becoming collectors in an important area. I have said sufficient to commend this proposal to the Committee, and I do ask them to take the advice of the hon. and learned Member who preceded me, and to look at this from a business point of view.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point about limitation?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member raised so many sections and schedules that it was extremely difficult to follow him, but I promise him I shall read tomorrow what he said and look into it carefully.

Sir W. DAVISON: There is only one reason why I welcome the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) and that is that it shows the Committee that this is really not a party matter. It is a matter in which the House of Commons, which used to be described as the Grand Inquest of the Nation, should protect the public. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just said that he makes no complaint, and that no complaint has been made as to the administration of the Income Tax in this country. Why then not leave well alone? It is quite true that, as in many of the institutions of this country, the administration of Income Tax in this regard is not strictly logical, but it has been administered in this way for a very long time, and it has the confidence of the public. The Chancellor will agree that the administration of the Income Tax, which is the backbone of our system of taxation, and the way that with practically no difficulty we get in these millions of money every year for the national finances, is the wonder and admiration of all the other taxing authorities in the world. I say again, why not Jet well alone.
Though it is not strictly logical, there is no doubt that this system has the confidence of the country. The country feels that by the appointment of these unpaid general commissioners the public in a way have the levying of this tax upon themselves, that the local commissioners know their difficulties, that they have authority to give little extensions of time and know why in a particular year a particular individual in a particular district is rightly assessed on a smaller sum than he was a year before because his business has not been so good. Unless there are any abuses—and no abuses have been suggested—it is a great pity to do anything which, to say the least, is not desired by a very large number of citizens. It may be only a matter of sentiment that the public like to feel that their system of collection over a great part of the country is under the super-
vision of local commissioners, but I believe that that is one reason why there is little or no evasion of the tax. It is an extraordinary thing, considering that the tax is levied on returns made by individuals, how very little evasion there is in the course of years.
Chancellor after Chancellor, under pressure of the chief officials of the Inland Revenue, have pressed this Clause on the House of Commons year after year. It is no party matter, and I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to stand up for what great numbers of citizens consider is a safeguard and a protection. I know that it is not suggested in this Clause to disestablish the general commissioners or the assessors with one stroke of the pen, but it is an insidious way of undermining them by taking away the collectors, because, as the Chancellor indicated, the assessors, unless they are collectors as well, are very badly remunerated. Because the collectors and the assessors are badly remunerated is no reason for changing a system which has worked so well. It is a reason why the Treasury should assist the general commissioners in improving the status and salaries of the persons who have these responsible duties. It is no reason whatever for undermining and destroying a system which has been satisfactory for many years, and which is the admiration of other taxing authorities in the world.

Mr. PALMER: I want to put in a plea for the tax collector. Representations have been made to me by this important group of civil servants that their status is not so good as it should be, and they welcome the provisions of this Clause. Two parties are to be considered in this Clause. There is the tax collector, the man who is at present doing the work, who is not quite satisfied with his status in the important function that he is performing, and who sees the opportunity of a very material improvement of status under this provision. Another party to consider is the taxpayer. I cannot see that the plea has been sustained for the retention of the present loose, haphazard method, the "jack-of-all trades" methods such as was described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the present system.
I object to an important State function being carried out on a part-
time basis at a remuneration which is a scandal. The only way in which important work like this can be carried out is to enforce the provisions of this Clause. Further, it will be found that provision has to made under the Clause for an extension of the function of the tax collector. He has to do the work of collecting the Land Tax as well as the other part, and I congratulate the Chancellor on having made this provision, which has come all too late, for making the status, remuneration, pensions and all the conditions of service of the important men whom we call the tax collectors, what they should be. I wonder that a civilised community should have tolerated the loose and haphazard method which has gone on for so long. This Clause has not come a day too soon. If anything, I would rather extend than reduce its provisions.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: It is always pleasant to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a reminiscent mood and a human frame of mind. When I listened to his speech, everything that he said seemed to convince me he was wrong. I liked the idea of the Chancellor in his youth training himself up for his great future, and I liked to think of him helping the local grocer. But, apart from that, I do not think he quite sees the usefulness of the system which he attacks. It has been the principle for a long period in British taxation that the people tax themselves, and therefore I see every advantage in the local farmer and the local grocer being able to tax his fellow local farmers and local grocers. He knows the circumstances in which they are placed. The Chancellor, when he was a young man, was, I am sure, very human in his exactions and was able to show a merciful hand where necessary simply because he knew the local conditions. I do not think the trade competitor in England will exercise an unfair use of the knowledge he acquires in this way.
It is proposed to introduce a system of civil servants who are to be transferred from district to district, who will have no local feeling and will not understand the people or know their circumstances. You are going to introduce an inhumanity into the system of taxation which the previous system had not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might well reflect on the op-
posite point of view and consider whether the old system has not great advantages, for, as my hon. Friend behind me said, the system of British taxation has been the wonder of the world. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the City of London has been left out of this arrangement.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The reason why the City of London has been left out is that it is the largest tax-collecting centre of the country. One-sixth of the total Income Tax is collected in the City of London, and therefore they must of necessity have the most perfect organisation. I have no feeling in the matter, however, and, if it be the wish of the House to bring the City of London within the Bill, I am perfectly willing to do it.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Far be it from me to speak for the City of London, but I am entitled to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he made the exception. It appears that in the City, where they collect one-sixth of the Income Tax, the old system works extremely well. We know that the City has been a strong opponent of this transference, and that the Chancellor has been persuaded by the City to make an exception, but no doubt their time will come and the Chancellor will introduce all over the country a system of a homogeneous kind. The Chancellor implied that the opinion of the tax collectors was on his side. Of course it is, because this is combined with an offer of an enormously increased position. It is only human that they should be on his side if they are offered so great an advantage in order to change their minds. They held a different view until 1927. It was only when his proposal was allied to a material advantage to their own career that they changed their minds.
I am not sure that I like the idea of the career of a tax collector; it is too

reminiscent of the old Roman days. I like the old part-time system in which the collector has no ideas of a great career which might come to him if he collected a sufficient amount of tax and if he screwed up the taxpayers sufficiently. I like the old system in which there is no advantage to be acquired by the local collector, who has his other business to attend to and who carries out the public duty of collecting taxes with sympathy for his fellow-taxpayers.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: One argument which has been raised against the present system is that the present collectors are badly paid and hold an unsatisfactory position for that reason. That is no reason for abolishing the system. The Inland Revenue can well arrange to continue the present system and give the commissioners such support and such opportunity for paying these people as fairly and reasonably as you like. There is a great principle at the back of this system of taxing ourselves. The Government have recognised it by the way in which they have omitted the City of London from this change. If only the commissioners were able to employ collectors on proper and satisfactory terms with reasonable remuneration, the slight case which there is now for the change would disappear altogether. As a matter of fact, the part-time collector, if properly paid so that you can get efficient collectors, is a very satisfactory way of doing the work and a much less expensive way than the way which is now proposed. I must congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, while not giving way, has developed a most polite and persuasive manner which he showed in the way in which he dealt with this Amendment.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 200.

It being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 4th June, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Clauses 33 (Repeal of s. 47 of 20 and 21 Geo. 5. c. 28); 34 (Amendment of s. 48
of 20 and 21 Geo. 5. c. 28); 35 (Exemption of savings certificates held by persons domiciled in Channel Islands or Isle of Man from estate duty); 36 (Prolongation of currency of savings certificates) and 37 (Construction, short title, application and repeat), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — POSTPONED CLAUSE 19.—(Exemptions.)

Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 19, line 3, to leave out from the word "unit," to the end of line 5, and to insert instead thereof the word "which."
I may explain my Amendment best in this way. This Clause grants certain exemptions and reliefs, and the words which I propose to leave out except from exemptions and relief land units which are subject to a lease granted for a term exceeding 50 years. I want to make sure that the full exception which I understand the Government really wish to give is given effectively in these cases. The position is that, taking Clause 19 by itself, certain charities—if I may use that word widely to cover all the exempted list—are exempted from this tax in respect of land which is not let by them for a period of 50 years. If it is subject to a lease for 50 years, then, under this Clause, they are not exempt. I am told that they are exempt under Clause 20.
That may be the case, but realising that the mere striking out of these words at the beginning of this Clause was not quite sufficient I have ventured to put down another Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment to provide that in the case of any of these exempted units the amount which could be thrown back on to the owner by the lessee should not be thrown back upon him and that the lessee should be exempt. The only thing I have to say about it is that that Amendment of mine, which, with a slight amount of polishing up, would meet the whole case, is only five lines in length, and the Government apparently propose to do the same thing by a Clause which is nearly a page and a half and contains in the very first Subsection one sentence of 15 lines. I have been trying to make out what the Clause means exactly, and I think I have arrived at the intention, but the whole thing is so involved that it needs to be carefully considered. I ask the Solicitor-General whether what is intended to be done by Clause 20 could not be done by a more direct form of words which would be beyond doubt, and which would be more easily understood by the taxpayer.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): The intention, and I think the achievement, of Clause 20 is to
give the result which the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) has mentioned. The matter has been very carefully considered, and it has been decided that what I have suggested is the best way of doing it in order to make certain that the exemption is granted. I will, however, promise to look into the matter again, and see whether any improvements can be made in the drafting.

Sir D. HERBERT: I know that there are many important things to be discussed, but I want to suggest that the whole of Clause 20 might be got into 20 lines at the outside, instead of the long Clause which is proposed. If I scrutinised that Clause, I think I should find that all sorts of questions might be raised, such as the question whether "land unit" is the proper phrase to deal with this particular interest. From what the Solicitor-General has said I take it that he will be prepared to reconsider this point, and, if he gives me that undertaking, I should be inclined to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I understand that the hon. Member desires to withdraw his Amendment.

Sir D. HERBERT: I did not ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, because I was anxious to give some of my hon. Friends an opportunity of discussing my Amendment. As soon as my hon. Friends have said what they wish to say, then I shall be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: There are other people concerned about the wording of Clause 19. The associations which represent the local authorities have expressed some concern about the proposals in Clause 19 and they are not convinced that their case is covered by the provisions in Clause 20. I ask the Solicitor-General, in reconsidering this matter, to take into account the opinion of the Municipal Corporations Association who have communicated with me in regard to it.

Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 19, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) is held by a body of persons for charitable, benevolent, or religious purposes who are exempt from liability to Income Tax under the provisions of Section thirty-seven of the Income Tax Act, 1918, or under Section thirty-two of the Finance Act, 1921, as amended by Section nineteen of the Finance Act, 1930.
This Amendment was put down at the request of the Church of Scotland, but of course, in its ambit, it is much greater, and covers all charitable, benevolent, or religious purposes. In view of the fact that the Amendment which has been put down on this point by the, Chancellor of the Exchequer covers charitable, benevolent, or religious purposes, I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by debating this Amendment at any length. There is one particular object which the Church of Scotland has in mind and about which there is some doubt. It is whether the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes would cover the widows and orphans fund. It was in order to cover that fund that a reference was made to Section 32 of the Finance Act of 1921. From the point of view of the Treasury, I understand that my proposal goes too far, because it covers other things to which they do not wish to extend exemptions. I am informed, however, that it will be covered by Sections 37 and 38 of the Income Tax Act. If I receive an assurance to that effect, I do not wish to press my Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have not sufficient knowledge of the fund in question to give a definite answer, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) will allow me to put it in this way. If the fund is one distributed by way of bounty and not by way of contract, I think it would be a charity within the sense of a charity under the Income Tax Act; but, if it is a contractual fund, and if it is not distributed by way of bounty, it would not be exempt under the general charitable Clause.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I gather that it is quite clear that it is a fund distributed by way of bounty. In these circumstances, I do not wish to press my Amendment further. The matter will be looked into by the Church of Scotland, and, if it has not been made quite
clear, I will raise the matter again on the Report stage.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There is another question which I desire to raise on this Amendment. Probably we shall not have an opportunity of discussing the Government Amendment to-night. Some of us are strongly opposed to this form of endowment and charitable provisions being dealt with in this way, and, if we miss this chance of discussing the point, we may not have another opportunity.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Government Amendment must be reached.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, but it may not be discussed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Government Amendment must be reached and will, so far as I know, be discussed.

Sir D. HERBERT: What is the question before the Committee?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), and is proposed from the Chair.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This question has frequently been discussed in this House. I have refreshed my mind with previous Debates on this question. The exemption of charities and religious endowments from taxation is a subject which has frequently been brought forward. The question was discussed on one almost historic occasion, and, as the question has so often been put to audiences as to what Mr. Gladstone said in 1863, I will tell the House something of what he did say. I have the very greatest admiration for every word that fell from Mr. Gladstone's lips, and I do not think that hon. Members can do better than look back to the attitude which Mr. Gladstone took up on various occasions when he spoke on this question. On the particular occasion to which I refer, Mr. Gladstone made a speech which the late Herbert Paul said was the finest speech Mr. Gladstone made in his life. It was almost a unique occasion, and, speaking from that Box with a party majority behind him, Mr. Gladstone's proposal was defeated. Nevertheless, Mr. Gladstone was in the right, and his speech on that occasion carries conviction to-day. The occasion of that speech was a Motion to exempt charities from the Income Tax,
and Mr. Gladstone opposed that exemption, as all good Chancellors of the Exchequer would do, but he was beaten. The arguments used by Mr. Gladstone on that occasion are as sound now as they were then, and he laid down that:
What the State remits to a man it gives to him.
If you remit the Land Tax, or any other tax to any charitable or religious institution, you are in fact endowing that charity and that institution. He went on to say:
If this money is to be laid out upon what are called charities, why is that portion of the State expenditure to be altogether withdrawn from view. … to be so contrived that we shall know nothing of it and have no control over it?
If you are voting the State's money, this House has a right to see how that money is spent, whether it is wasted or otherwise. He also said:
A payment of public money for the purpose I have stated, which payment can only be obtained by levying it off the rest of the community, appears to me. … to be wrong in principle and dangerous in its consequences.
8.0 p.m.
Can anyone deny to-day that it is "wrong in principle and dangerous in its consequences" when all chance of public control or criticism over the expenditure of that money is withdrawn? It may be urged that at any rate religious endowments stand upon a different footing. That was indeed Mr. Gladstone's view also, but his view was that no one should be bold enough to ask for the exemption of religious endowments from Income Tax, and that only charitable endowments might ask for it. As to religious endowments, he said—and I wish it were true to-day:
The State has, however, long thought that with respect to religious endowments it was desirable, owing to their nature, to pass laws with a view to limit their growth.
I wish we could say the same to-day. Here we are, under this Amendment, removing from the purview of this tax not merely churches and schools, but every bit of property belonging to those churches. The whole of the valuable building estate round the Westminster Pro-Cathedral becomes henceforth free of Land Value Duty. The whole of every bit of property belonging to a church
or to a charity, though there is no sort of supervision as to the way in which that money is expended, though much of it is expended, in my opinion, in the propagation of error, is all exempted from taxation and control. I conceive this to be a thoroughly reactionary step that we are taking. I do not believe that there can be any democratic argument in favour of it. We see these religious endowments growing in strength and growing in wealth, and I would remind those hon. Friends of mine who support this as in the interests of their faith that, in the words of M. Clemenceau, uttered not long before he died:
Christianity, which began by being the refuge of the poor, has ended by becoming the trades union of the rich.
Every additional endowment clogs the power of that institution for good. Here you are endowing it. We are not told—it has not been suggested that we should be informed—as to what the amount of the endowment is to be, and there is no estimate as to how much the Church of England, or the Roman Catholic Church, or the Nonconformist bodies, or charitable organisations are going to get out of the taxpayer's pocket by this relief. That is left out. Nevertheless, the rest of the taxpayers are contributing that money. It is so easy to press for exemptions. I understand that every Member of this House on the Labour benches, except myself, has put down an Amendment to exempt something or other. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Good, there are some sound people still left, but it is so easy to ask for exemption for your friends.
I must confess that latterly I have not been giving all the time to Parliamentary duties that I might, because I have been spending so much time in historical research, and I have found many interesting things from the actions of Parliament in the 15th century. In the 15th century the Civil Service of this country was paid for by the Crown by giving grants, unfortunately for life in most cases. The civil servant begged for what he could get, and got what he could, and the grants naturally, as the Civil Service developed, became more and more numerous; and every now and then the public opinion of the country got so exasperated by the progressive poverty of
the Crown and the progressive endowment of the Civil Service that something in the nature of a revolution took place, and the Commons forced through an Act of Resumption, whereby, without a penny piece of compensation, everything that the King had granted was resumed to the Crown—a very sound piece of legislation. It was never called robbery in those days, but resumption. Nowadays it is called robbery, but the act was the same. But directly Parliament had passed an Act of Resumption, the individual Members of Parliament got together and put in Clauses to exempt their friends. Now in one of the Acts of Resumption at which I was looking, away back in 1455, I think, the exemptions for the friends of the King who got the grants—most of them, I regret to say, Members of that Parliament—occupied 375 double columns of the folio volume of the Rolls of Parliament.
Here, too, it is said, "Let us exempt our friends. Whatever else we do, whatever happens to the taxpayer, whatever happens to our financial virtue, let us exempt our friends"; and we have proceeded to exempt and exempt till there is nothing left of the tax at all. However, I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is standing firm against some of the exemptions. He is only exempting the charities, whether good, bad or indifferent; and churches—whether they preach that which is right or wrong does not matter—are exempted, but I do not think that we are exempting trade union funds—an extraordinary thing. I do not think that we are exempting widows and orphans per se—another extraordinary thing. We are only exempting the institutions. I am afraid that much as the majority of the Members of this Committee probably disapprove of the individual exemptions proposed by these Amendments, yet because they are implicated in some of them, they feel that the exemptions must be accepted and carried through.
I wish there was more financial virtue about this House of Commons. I wish we could stand up, as Gladstone did in 1863, and say: "The arguments in favour of exempting charities, although they may move the heart of the hearer, yet have no substance in logic or in ethics." I wish we could say, as he said then,
that because many people ask for exemption, that is no reason why the Government should consent to exempt them. In those days the Government of Mr. Gladstone at any rate looked after the interest of the country as a whole and put that in front of the various vested interests clamouring for his assistance. I wish I knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was standing firm to-day. I am sorry that we are having any concessions made, but I would not like this Bill to go through without putting forward my voice——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and gallant Member must keep to the particular Amendment before the Committee.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Amendment covers a good deal of the ground. In any case, it covers enough ground to meet with my opposition, and I should not have liked to let this Amendment be embodied in the Bill without recording that at any rate those of us who set some value by tradition and by the wisdom of our forefathers are opposed to these endowments of charities, often false, and religions growing dangerously strong.

Mr. OLDFIELD: On a point of Order. I think everybody in the House probably shares the hon. Member's desire to get to the Amendment which is being moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is a fact that most of the other Amendments on the Paper before it are very much affected by the Chancellor's Amendment. I would ask whether it would not be possible to deal rather shortly and objectively with the Amendments which come before that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and have a more general discussion on the Government Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order, but I would remind the hon. Member that there are several Amendments on the Paper that I must call, and which without general consent I cannot pass over them before we reach the Government's Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Major COLVILLE: I beg to move, in page 19, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) is land used for industrial purposes, and for the purposes of this Part of this Act 'industrial purposes' means purposes of the following classes (that is to say):—

(i) the use of land any part of which or the buildings or structures upon which would make such land, buildings, or structures or any part of them subject to the provisions of the Factory and Workshops Acts, 1901 to 1920; or
(ii) any land which, with the buildings or structures thereon, is within the definition of industrial hereditaments as defined in Section three of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928."
I think I am speaking for every member of the party to which I belong when I say that while we disapprove of the whole principle of this tax, in no aspect does it strike us as more sinister than in relation to its application to industry. I think I may be pardoned if I take a wide view in discussing the Amendment. Great Britain is an industrial country, whose population has increased in a century from 14,000,000 to 40,000,000, supported largely by her industry, her home trade and her foreign trade, and at the present time, while our population presses on us, our industry languishes, and the outlet of emigration, which for many years ran at a level of some 400,000 a year, is practically closed. Therefore, we have this great problem at home of finding employment for our people. Costly expedients are resorted to to maintain our population. Only yesterday the House passed a Resolution to borrow up to £125,000,000 for unemployment relief, yet we feel—and I think everyone in this House, irrespective of party, must feel—that the real cure does not lie in palliatives like that, but in trying to get people back to work, and that anything which stands in the way of that end should be countered at once.
Nobody has pronounced more gravely on the situation in industry in this country than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, in a speech which he will very well remember. On the 11th February, there was a Debate on a Motion of Censure on the Government—an economy Debate—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech which made an impression not only on the House and the whole country, but I think I am not wrong in saying, on the whole world. He visualised the grave situation in which our industries stand, and I will quote one sentence, which summed up the whole
thing. He referred to a quotation from last year's Budget speech, in which he had said that he was anxious to avoid, if possible, further imposts upon industry, and he then went on in these words:
In view of the deeper depression since that time, I feel the importance of that statement to-day more than I did 12 months ago. I believe, if I may put it so bluntly as this, that an increase of taxation in present conditions which fell on industry would be the last straw.
Those are very blunt words, as he himself calls them. He goes on:
Schemes involving heavy expenditure, however desirable they may be, will have to wait until prosperity returns. This is necessary—I say this more particularly to my hon. Friends behind—to uphold the present standard of living, and no class will ultimately benefit more by present economy than wage earners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1931; cols. 447–8, Vol. 248.]
That was a grave and courageous statement for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make, but when, three months afterwards, he comes forward with a new tax directly on industry, what are we to think? There is no doubt that this will be a direct new tax on industry unless this Amendment is accepted. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who laugh show that they have not read the Bill. It is a new tax to be applied to the land of every industrial and manufacturing concern, whether that concern is making profits or losses, and no matter what fierce competition it is up against—and the competition in this, the world's dumping ground at the present time, has never been fiercer. No matter what competition it may be up against, no matter whether its operations are carried on at a profit or at a loss, it has to bear a tax on the land which is essential for carrying on its business.
How will this tax fall on industry? If the manufacturer owns the land, it will obviously fall on him directly, and will thus be a direct addition to his overhead charges. Hon. Members may say that it is small, but what about the last straw? A straw seems a small thing, but it breaks the camel's back, and I shall be prepared to prove later on that it is not so very small. [Interruption.] The way in which hon. Members treat this Debate is good evidence that, as we hold, Labour is unfit to govern. If, on the other hand, the ground is leased, I hold that in the case of leases, sooner or later—and sooner
in most cases—the tax will be passed on by the owner of the land to the lessee, and so he will be required to bear a heavier burden. What will happen in Scotland, where, as we know, the feudal system is maintained, is that feus will be more difficult to get. I see that the Lord Advocate does not agree with me, but I can assure him that it will be so, because landlords, very naturally, will not feu a subject upon which they are to be taxed if they can sell it, and so ground will have to be bought instead of feued, which means an additional capital charge on newly developing industries, because they will have to find money to buy the ground instead of merely a feu duty, which is a small amount each year. Therefore, the tax will fall upon industry in these three ways, and the statement is unanswerable that in every case it will be a direct burden on industry.
Another point is that, broadly speaking, it is those industries which are most depressed at the present time which require most land for the purposes of their manufactures. Such are the shipyards, the iron and steel works, the oil refineries—all of them going through a very difficult time at the moment. Take the shipyards. I have been looking into this question, and I find that, so far as the shipyards are concerned, this tax is going to be a serious burden. Figures furnished by a chamber of commerce in a great city in the North, where shipbuilding is a very important industry, show the position to be this: Shipbuilding sites must be confined to limited positions, adjoining deep and smooth water, and, therefore, their values are relatively high. In the second place, a large area of ground is necessary relative to the capital in the business. Why should they bear a heavier tax because they need ground on account of their industry? Thirdly, most of the sites now in use have been used for years for this purpose, and have largely increased in value, and, so far from the value having been created by the community, it has been created by the shipyard. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is not here. I would have liked to ask him where Dumbarton Burghs would be but for John Brown's shipyard. Fourthly, most of the firms in this industry have bought more land alongside their yards, in order to be able to cope with future develop-
ments, and they are to be taxed on that land. Finally, as we know, this is one of the most severely hit industries, and I have figures to show that in the case of several of these yards the tax will run into very large amounts.
Passing to the iron and steel industry, it was stated in answer to a question to-day in the House, that there were only 80 blast-furnaces in blast to-day, as against 150 when the present Government came in two years ago. Is that an industry which is so prosperous that it can afford to bear another tax? As regards the employment in that industry, we know that it has gone back very much during the last two years. The level of unemployment in the industry is 34 per cent. to-day, as against 19 per cent. two years ago, whereas the general level of unemployment at the present time is between 16 and 17 per cent. That shows that this industry, which, as I have said, needs a lot of land, is one of the most severely hit at the present time by unemployment. How do hon. Members opposite justify the proposal to apply this tax to the land used for that industry? I know of a firm in the north whose works stand on a fairly valuable site, but who only employ 200 or 300 men, and the tax in their case will be fully £l per man employed, based on a fairly accurate estimate of the value of the land and a tax of 1d. in the £. Why a tax of £l a head should be applied to them I cannot see.
I could multiply instances, but there is no need; the principle is perfectly clear. I would like, however, again to mention the oil refineries. There are many in my constituency, and at the moment they are threatened with the necessity for closing down, as a result of which some 2,500 men would be put out of work. Their land will be taxed, making it more difficult still for them ever to bring those men back into employment. Why do that? Can hon. Members opposite explain what contribution that is towards solving the unemployment problem? We believe that what is needed in this country, more than anything else, in order to get our industries running again, is confidence. What possible confidence can manufacturers in this country have when they see a Government whose chief representative and spokesman said three months ago that one more straw would break the camel's back, and now heaps
on, not a straw, but a whole bundle? I do not see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer can resist this Amendment, in view of his previous words.
Has the position improved during the last three months? Has anything occurred which has made our industries more able to bear this burden? If the right hon. Gentleman does resist this Amendment, will he do so on the ground that he must have the money? If so, let him look for it from some other source, and not from one which obviously cannot pay. The reasons which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in his Budget speech have no relation to the tax which is to be applied to-day. He said that he wanted to get at what is known as unearned increment, and he asked us to help him to combat the exploitation of the public by private land monopoly. What in the world has that to do with the land on which industrial concerns stand? Nothing at all. He claims that this tax is being applied in order to catch those whom we should all like to catch who may be exploiting the public by private land monopoly; but that has no relation at all to the land that is essential for business concerns who have no intention of selling it if they can use it profitably and give employment.
There is no justification whatever for the tax. Manufacturers are straining every nerve to meet a competition which is more fierce than has been known in the lifetime of any of us. Their attention has to be diverted. They have to get their own valuers and assessors to combat the threats of the Government. The Gloucestershire regiment wears a cap badge behind as well as in front. The origin of that is that in a famous action, when they were hotly attacked, they were also attacked from behind, but they stood their ground and beat off both attacks. They faced both ways. That is exactly what the Government are asking the manufacturers to do. They are asking them to meet foreign competition and at the same time to combat their own Government, which should be helping instead of hindering them. Why cannot the Government be the allies of British industry instead of its opponents? If they accept the Amendment, it will go out from this House
that they have realised the necessity of raising the burden from the shoulders of British industry rather than putting on a new burden. If they resist it, it will go out that they do not understand the troubles that afflict the country, and unemployment will continue and increase as long as they are in office.

Mr. MacLAREN: Nothing could be more true than that industry wants relief from the heavy burden of taxation. If the hon. Member had been in the House long enough, he would know that, time in and time out, I have advocated the relief of the industries of the country from taxation, as I believe that the heavy weight of taxation is one of the most potent forces that are driving us into an inferior position compared with our foreign competitors. But here comes the point. If we are advocating the under-taxing of industry, the throwing off of this burden which is constantly growing and accumulating on the back of industry, where must we find the money? Where must you go for your taxation? A well-known writer, Mr. Bernard Shaw, made the same remark when he said, "The House of Commons is peopled with men who will constantly try to solve problems by all sorts of forms and expedients, but they will fail, because very few of them are conscious of the operation of the law of rent. They are still on the wrong side of the pons asinorum, the law of rent." I could not help feeling that the hon. and gallant Gentleman with his Scottish precision, but utterly lacking in Scottish logic, was going on to argue a ease on all fours with the case that I have often put up. He did not seem to see that what he is arguing for is the very negation of all that we are trying to get by imposing a tax upon land values. This is not a tax upon industry. How often are we to tell you that? [Interruption.] I thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) would laugh at that. Worcester College was never noted for its understanding of economic law. I hope I shall make the right hon. Gentleman laugh on the other side of his face before I sit down. I will challenge anyone to prove that this is a tax on industry.

Major COLVILLE: Is it to be applied to industrial subjects or not?

Mr. MacLAREN: It is to be applied, if you will read and understand the Bill, to the value of land.

Major COLVILLE: On which industrial subjects stand.

Mr. MacLAREN: Exactly, and it is where you stand too, but I want you to watch what happens. Whether you are standing on an industrial subject or in your own house, there is a landowner demanding rent from you for standing there. Have you never noticed that? It is amazing that one has to lecture Members of the House of Commons on a simple matter like that. This is not a tax upon industry, but upon land. In my Second Reading speech I made that my first remark. [Interruption.] I am glad the right hon. Gentleman agrees. I will take him for a walk now that I have got him out into the wilderness. A tax upon land can never be a tax upon industry. I should like hon. Members opposite to compose a little essay on the law of rent. What is rent? Do any of you know? I have had a suspicion for a long time that you do not. I am not a wealthy man, but I could quite easily give a prize to anyone who would define it in the House of Commons to-night. Rent is what a landlord takes from anyone who uses his piece of land. It is determined by the demand that a number of people make for the use of the site, and it is the rent that the landowner takes, the rent that he walks off with and appropriates for his private use, which is now to come under the charge of a tax in this Budget. Whether you like the taxation of land values or not, this tax will be levied upon the rent for the land value, and the land value has to be paid whether the land belongs to you or not. The landowner takes the rent, and all that we are doing by this tax is to stop the landowner on the way home and take a little from him.

Major COLVILLE: How about the case where an industrial company owns the land?

Mr. MacLAREN: I will deal with that in a moment. Do not be so impatient. There is nothing I like more than lecturing Tories on the land question, because it gets you back to fundamentals instead of what passes for politics in this House. It has been said
that the value of a shipyard is high if it is near smooth and deep water. Reference was made to a great city in the North, which I suspect was Glasgow, where shipbuilding is carried on. Who charges the Land Value Tax when you get deep and smooth water on the Clyde? Is it the Government, or it is Lord Blythswood or any of the Noble Lords who own land on the Clyde and see a shipbuilder coming along and become advocates of land values taxation and charge high rents? Do they or do they not? No answer! All we are going to do under the taxation of land values is to collect a little tax from the landowner who takes advantage of an industry that gets near deep and smooth water to construct a shipyard.

Major COLVILLE: What about the industry that owns the land itself?

Mr. MacLAREN: That is to say, that here is a shipbuilding yard on the Clyde. It is constructed because of an, accident of nature, because of deep and smooth water on the Clyde. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is all dredged!"] Very good, then the Corporation of Glasgow dredge the river for the landowner.

Major COLVILLE: The Corporation of Glasgow never carried out any dredging operations in their lives.

Mr. MacLAREN: The river has been dredged. [An HON. MEMBER; "By whom?"] By the Clyde Trust. The corporation is a common unit; it is a public corporation. [Interruption.] Leave them to me. I am having a night out with them now. The Clyde Trust dredges the river, and the landowner on the banks of the river takes advantage of public expenditure to make a charge upon the industrial company which comes along to build and launch ships there. I put it to the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville), that if he came across advantageous sites for shipbuilding on the banks of the Clyde, the landowner would capitalise all that had been done by the Clyde Trust in dredging and so on and put it in the bill he would charge against the shipbuilding company for putting a dockyard there. No reply. That means assent, does it not? If there was no deep water and no smooth water, no one would put a shipyard there. We have been told by the hon. and gallant Member that by virtue
of these natural adjustments the shipyard was put there. If a shipping company wants to put a shipyard there, it will have to pay a heavy price for the site. Having paid that price to the landowner he no doubt walks off with the capitalised value in his pocket. Then we are told that this company is left with the site, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who spoke the other flight about the last straw breaking the camel's back, is now coming along to put an extra tax upon industry.
Really, that is tinkering with the facts of the case. Even if you own the site upon which your shipyard stands you must surely, in your book-keeping, set aside a certain amount for the annual rent value of the site you are using. You must charge yourself in your books for the rental of the site you are using. All that we are suggesting is, that the land value shall stand charged with the tax. Those of us in this House who have advocated the taxation of rent, have advocated the taxation of ground values or rent or site values as an alternative to the present vicious and stupid system of taxing and rating industry in proportion to the amount of energy it puts into the industry. We have advocated that, and now, for the first time in the history of this House, we see it coming through in this Budget only to find that the industrialists themselves are still befogged and think that it is an extra tax upon industry. It is a tax upon rent. Rent must be paid in all circumstances. You set aside a portion to be paid in respect of the site so used, and all we are doing is to put a tax upon that and not upon industry at all. We would relieve industry from taxation. In proportion as we levied taxes upon the value of the site, we would give relief in taxation upon that which is already the subject of taxation.

Mr. ROSS: What relief is proposed?

Mr. MacLAREN: In passing, it is quite appropriate to call attention to the fact that the De-rating Bill was supposed to be an effort made by the late Government on behalf of the industrialists of this country to remove taxation from industry. That was the major proposition. The De-rating Bill was brought in with the one object only of de-rating industries and relieving them from the pressure of taxation locally which made
it more or less a handicap upon those industries in international competition. During the Debate I warned the House that if, at the same time, you did not put, what this Budget now purports to do, a tax upon the value of land, that which is supposed to accrue from the de-rating of the industrial hereditament would finally record itself in advance of the value of the sites used by the industrial hereditament. I still hold that view.
Let us look at what happens now. I ask this question of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who may resent what I am saying. Does the landowner who is collecting rent stop collecting rent when he finds the industry in distress? Your rent is a first charge. The landowner's demand must be met annually, or, if you like, you have to have a capitalised sum in being. But the landowners collect land values now. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are constantly reducing rents!"] There may be some compassionate ones, but speaking generally—and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know it—the landowner collects his rent as regularly as the clock ticks, and with no regard whatever to the distress or otherwise of the industry from which he collects it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Take the distressed industries of this country to-day. Here is the Chancellor of the Exchequer sending subventions down to the distressed areas. Thousands of pounds of public money are being sent into distressed areas. For what purpose? To pay the rent of the landowners as a first charge in those areas. Do hon. and right hon. Members deny it?

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Is not a union charge due when the men are out of work?

Mr. MacLAREN: I am speaking specifically about the mysterious element called rent, and it is this thing which we are going to make subject to taxation. All that I am telling the Committee at the moment—and it seems to be a fact not observed by the ordinary Members of the Committee—is that to-day the landowners are the real land values men. They take their toll of rent out of industry in this country. Rather than proceeding further to tax industry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has an alternative plan before him. He can either increase taxes upon industry, or
he can do the other thing: He can put taxation upon the rent which the landlords are receiving. You cannot have it both ways. I would advise you to take it my way. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the owners?"] I have dealt with him. The owner must regularly apportion a certain amount of income as rent payable for the land, and it is that which is subject to the tax.
A word about feu duties. We have had a lovely example to-night from an hon. Member opposite as to what is going to happen if the superiors are taxed upon feu duties. It was a little slip which it would have been better for him to have left out. He told us that the superiors will not feu rent in Scotland in view of the threat of a tax coming along. It is said that he will sell it. I suppose he will attempt to sell it, but I can assure the hon. Member of the salutary effect of this method of taxing land values. He will find it much more difficult to get purchasers than ever before, because the threat of a tax will keep would-be purchasers from jumping forward. I want the Committee to notice that these great loyal supporters of the King and Constitution will, whenever they are threatened with a tax upon the value of land, resort to all sorts of devices to escape the King's taxes, and in respect of the old historic method of feuing land in Scotland, by the device of the back letter, which is well known in Scotland. Rather than carry on the regular practice, they are going to stop feuing.
My word to the Scottish landowners is this: "Good luck to you, try it, because with the threat of this tax coming along you will find that there are not so many customers looking for freeholds in Scotland as before, and your little device of trying to circumvent the tax by abolishing feuing and trying to capitalise your property by selling it an enhanced price to an industry which we are told are in distress, will not avail you." We are told that the industries are distressed, and the very mouth that tells us that is advising the landowners of Scotland not to continue the old feuing system, which was an accommodation in many cases to industry, but to stand with their revolver charged, and when any industrialists come along and want more land to tell them that they will have no more land feued to them, but that they will
have to pay the capitalised price. It seems a strong apologia coming from such a gentleman.
In London we have had an example of the application of the law of rent. Gamage attempted to have a big business near the Marble Arch. The landowner wanted £20,000 for two years and £30,000 for 99 years for the site. Gamage has gone out of business, but the landowner's claim remains. He was the land value taxer. He was the gentleman who is demanding the value of the site——[An HON. MEMBER: "He provided £300,000!"] I am told that the landowner invested £300,000. I know that, but the point is that for the shop business established there, the landowner was to collect his rent for 90 years at £30,000 a year. I am not blaming him. That was the value of the site, and he knew it. I would go round the country on the same principle and I would accept what the landowners say is the value of their land. Then I would support the Budget in demanding not that we should put fresh taxation upon industry, not that we should do as we have hitherto clone, watch the progress of a man's business and if he enhanced the value of his premises, put on more rates, if he extended his warehouse, more rates, if there was more invention, more rates; I would stop that thing, and I would ask what is the value of this site through the growth and progress of society. What is the value of the site by virtue of the fact that there has been this expansion of industry or this development of trade locally? Upon the basis of that value, we will levy our tax.
I hope that I have said enough to show, if I have not been over insistent upon the fact, that this is not a tax upon industry. If I thought for a moment that this tax, purporting to be a tax upon land values, was in any way a tax upon honest industry, I should be more opposed to it than any hon. or right hon. Member opposite, but it is because I know, and so do they know, that this is the beginning of the transference of taxation from honest industry to this great historic endowment called rent, land value, that I am supporting it. I can excuse a Member for an English constituency coming here and talking as the hon. and gallant Member
opposite has done, but I cannot understand it from one coming from Scotland where we train men to reason——

Major COLVILLE: And where you cannot get a seat.

Mr. MacLAREN: Where we train men to reason from intelligible premises and to make deductions. It is surprising that he should dare, in the year 1931, to say that a tax upon rent is a tax upon industry. That is too bad and I must report him to his constituency as soon as I get back there. I hope the Government will not entertain this proposition seriously. It is part and parcel of the sophistry thrown out by the vested interests, that this is a tax upon industry. I challenge any right hon. or hon. Member opposite to prove that a tax upon rent can at any time be a tax upon industry.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Will the hon. Member answer me a question?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lock-wood.

Mr. LOCKWOOD: We have listened with immense interest to the remarks of the last speaker. They were emphatic, as always, but some of us who approach this matter from the point of view of reasoning rather than from the point of view of fanaticism have come to a different conclusion. I was struck by one remark of the hon. Member. He seemed to have the idea of abolishing what he calls rent.

Mr. MacLAREN: Sometimes I speak on this subject with a sort of religious zeal which may overcome my clarity of expression. I should like to put the hon. Member right. You can no more abolish rent than you can abolish sunshine. Rent is inevitable and is always in existence, and therefore, as it is in existence and has a value, we propose to tax it.

Mr. LOCKWOOD: I thank the hon. Member for his explanation, but I do not think that it will make the slightest difference to my reasoning. There is one thing that should be borne in mind in dealing with the question of land taxation, and that is that land is only a form of property, just as stocks and shares, moveables or any other commodity.
Ownership of land throughout the generations has changed over and over again. We hear about God's own children being entitled to the land, but, as I was journeying from the House on my last; visit to the North and I looked out of the railway carriage and noticed the land, I saw what it was that made the value of the land. It was the people who tilled it and did work on it. I saw plots of land adjacent to each other. While one was a picture, the other was a terrible mess and a nuisance. I would like the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) to bear this fact in mind, because I regard him as fanatical on this subject as the last speaker. The value in land is created, like everything else, by the work and industry that is put into it. We are benefiting to-day by the value of land arising from the industry of generations so far as agricultural land is concerned. So far as industrial property is concerned, or the value of land in industrial centres is concerned, I concede the point that the value of that land has been made by the activity of the people and by their joint action, but when we come to the question of rent, where a particular form of ownership produces rent which is to be taxed, a fallacy arises. Why should we tax land because it is land notwithstanding that the owner may have paid the enhanced value which may have arisen from some joint effort? He has bought it in the market. It is perfectly legitimate to own land.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going rather wide of the Amendment. The Amendment is whether land used for industrial purposes should be exempt or not.

Mr. LOCKWOOD: I am sorry if I have strayed from the Amendment, but I was dealing with the fallacy of the argument of the hon. Member opposite. By this Amendment we are seeking to establish the proposition that industrial property should not be subject to this tax. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) again referred to the question of rent when dealing with this point. Unfortunately, many industrial concerns have to own their own land, and it is, of course, a great mistake to bring in legislation to deal with exceptional cases, for hard cases make bad laws.
But in many cases the business itself owns the land and it is not a question of rent but a question of the capital asset in their balance-sheet, and they are to be called upon to pay a tax, if the Amendment is not accepted, of an extra Schedule assessment simply because the industry happens to own land.
I note the solicitude of the bon. Member for Burslem for the welfare of industry. Let me develop that argument. It very often happens that the amount of land required by an industry does not depend on the size of the industry but on the nature of the industry. The hon. Member for Huddersfield knows that in Huddersfield we have built storey upon storey, whereas certain heavy industries require a much larger area. If the hon. Member is so sincere in his desire to prevent any further burdens being thrown upon industry can the hon. Member tell me why an industry employing a larger number of persons, and situate upon a larger acreage of land because of its nature, should have to pay more than a factory which is built up storey after storey and which has a much less number of employés, and less capital value so far as site is concerned. This Land Tax, which is based upon considerations which are incomprehensible to some of us who have been interested in these matters, is going to put a further penalty upon the whole of the industries of this country. They will not be able to get away from it; and it is to be put on industries without any regard to essential facts. This is a further overhead charge upon industry, upon which further employment rests; yet here we are, when faced with this very grave problem, imposing a further burden on industry, imposing a tax which will not produce more than the cost of collection.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: As one who has been somewhat abused as a fanatic on this issue, may I be allowed to make a short incursion into this Debate. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Lockwood) has said that there is no difference between a tax upon land and a tax upon stocks and shares, in his judgment they all come under the same heading.

9.0 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I called the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Lock
wood) to order because he was developing an argument on the general principle of the taxation of land value. The Amendment before the Committee and the only subject under discussion is whether land used for industrial purposes is to be exempt from the tax that is proposed to be levied.

Mr. HUDSON: With respect, I submit that the hon. Member for Shipley was endeavouring to show that land used for industrial purposes is in exactly the same position as stocks and shares in industry——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Shipley was dealing with the general principle of the taxation of land values when I called him to order and not with the question of land used for industry.

Mr. HUDSON: I am only assuming that that is what he intended to do, but he failed to do it. Perhaps he came nearer to the point after he had had the assistance of your Ruling. Let me take three illustrations of industries upon whom rent is charged for the land upon which their factories are erected. The hon. Member for Shipley has drawn attention to industrial conditions in Yorkshire. Let me take the case of three factories built up the Colne Valley, one at the head of the Valley, another one halfway down in the village of Slaithwaite, and another, the third, in Huddersfield. The firm in Huddersfield is nearest to the railways and to other advantages created not by the firm but by other agencies and forces, certainly not created by the owner of the firm; the firm at Slaithwaite, halfway up the Valley, enjoys advantages not so great as those possessed by the firm in Huddersfield; and then there is the factory at the head of the Valley, at what may be called the margin of production. These three firms are competing with each other, and in the process of competition a price for the article they produce is arrived at which enables the firm at the head of the Valley just to pay its way. The owner of the land, therefore, at the head of the Valley is unable to extract anything from the man who has built his factory there, but the owner of the land in Huddersfield, with his great advantages, is in a position to extract from the factory a toll from whoever is in occupation of the land.
In Huddersfield it is the case that the land is in the possession of the town, but that does not alter the law of rent. It merely means that the rent instead of going to a landlord goes to the town, and the Bill has provided for that, there is no attempt to extract rent in that case because it is going into the right quarters, into the possession of the public of Huddersfield. It will ultimately be used, and is now used, in relief of rates at Huddersfield. At Slaithwaite the firm in question extracts, or if it were a landlord who let the land to the firm he would extract, toll in relation to the advantage that that particular situation has. If the firm had bought the land it does not alter the situation, nor would the situation be altered if the urban district council at Slaithwaite had bought the land. It is an advantage that has not been created by industry. It is an advantage inherent in a particular position that that industry possesses, and the toll is taken quite irrespective of the industrial activities that are put in.
That was the point that my hon. Friend was making when dealing with the law of rent. I have applied it to industry. The question has nothing to do with building vertically or horizontally. The hon. Member who spoke last does not trouble the town council where he is situated with a question of that sort, because rates are collected now irrespective of vertical or horizontal building. It was a piece of imagination on the hon. Member's part—imagination that he had to call in aid on account of his inability to understand this law of rent. I come back again to what we have been insisting on, that if the Tory party would try to understand a few fundamental economic laws—[Interruption]—instead of talking the nonsense that they bring to this Committee, we could avoid a good deal of the waste of time that is due to their imagination on this issue of rent, interest and profit.

Mr. MANDER: I rise to express the hope that the Government will not see their way to accept the Amendment, because it cuts at the root of the whole system of land taxation, and probably was so intended. It would convert the Bill simply into a tax on undeveloped land, and the taking of increment from the land where increment has already
been created by the State would not be possible. I wish to make it clear that the official policy of the Liberal party has always been that there should be a general tax on all land in the country, whether it is developed or undeveloped. I shall quote an official resolution of the party to show that that is so. Our policy has not involved double taxation. The official policy of the party has been to use the revenue so obtained, or other revenue, to take the tax off improvements—to carry out a re-adjustment and to take the tax off industry where at present it rests in its most burdensome and difficult form. Let me quote the resolution that was passed at the meeting of the National Liberal Federation at Nottingham on 25th February, 1921:
That the site valuation of land of the 1909–10 Finance Act should be amended and brought up to date and should ho made accessible for public use, the value of all mineral and mining rights being included in site value"——

The CHAIRMAN: I am wondering what this has to do with the Amendment that is before the Committee.

Mr. MANDER: The Amendment would take away the taxation of all land that is already developed, and I was pointing out that we on these benches, in resisting the Amendment——

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Amendment deals entirely with land which is used for manufacturing purposes.

Mr. MANDER: It would at any rate make a considerable inroad into the system of taxation of land. I was putting forward the view that we, in resisting the Amendment, are following out what is the policy of the Liberal party, as laid down in an official resolution at a meeting of the National Liberal Federation, and I ask permission to complete the quotation that I was making.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment deals with land for industrial purposes and not with Liberal party and policy.

Mr. MANDER: I was dealing with the policy of the Liberal party covering this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must keep strictly to the Amendment.

Mr. MANDER: We resist the Amendment because it would be absolutely inconsistent with the view that our party
has adopted. The party has decided that a uniform national tax should be imposed on the capital site values of the whole country, including any industrial land such as is referred to in the Amendment, and that the revenue should be used to take the tax off improvements. I regret that the Government have not made it clearer in the Bill that this is in due course intended.

Mr. CULVERWELL: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to discuss other parts of the Bill when speaking on this Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows very well that; he is not.

Mr. MANDER: I was pointing out that it was regrettable that the Government had not made that clear. The greatest criticism that can be made of the points put forward in support of the Amendment is that under an Amendment which we understand is to be accepted by the Government later, the Amendment which has arisen out of the joint discussions of the Liberal and Labour Amendments——

The CHAIRMAN: I am not concerned with any other Liberal or Labour Amendment. The Amendment before the Committee is confined to land for industrial purposes.

Mr. MANDER: The case made, that this is going to be a very burdensome tax, is true if the tax is going to remain at 1d., but as a result of the deliberations to which I was referring it appears now that the tax will be only one-eighth of a penny, and the whole case against it falls to the ground.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: There is at least one advantage that we have obtained from the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken, for we now know that it is the definite policy of the Liberal party to tax land which has been specially developed for industrial purposes. I hope that my hon. Friend will go down to his constituency at Wolverhampton and say that. What has been done practically within the confines of the City of Manchester on the Trafford Park estate? There you have an estate which was bought and developed purely for industrial purposes. What has been the result? The railways surrounding the estate have developed themselves to
supply the site, to take goods to the site, to take manufactured goods away from the site, and roads have been developed. Why? Simply because those who bought the estate have developed it for industrial purposes.

Mr. MacLAREN: Who made the Ship Canal?

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The shareholders. I suppose that hon. Members opposite really think that the men who dug the trenches of the Ship Canal were the people who made it, but they could never have made it unless others had supplied the money to pay their wages. But I am not dealing with the Ship Canal; I am dealing with the Trafford Park estate, which has been developed by capitalists. That estate has been developed instead of being allowed to remain fallow, and all those who have means of transport anywhere near the site have developed the means of transport so as to make the Trafford Park estate an extraordinarily useful and valuable site for industrial purposes. It is quite true that when you value a piece of land for the purposes of this Measure you strip it of all industrial developments but you value it as having the advantage of the accessories of industrial development which have grown up around the estate, as a result of the development of the estate itself. Those developments would not have been there but for the capital expenditure on the development of the estate. Now the hon. Member says that the Trafford Park Estate which has developed the land purely and simply in the interest of the community for industrial purposes, is to be taxed upon the improvements which it has brought about, and he says that that is the considered policy of the Liberal party. No wonder they dare not face the electorate at the by-elections.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I propose to address myself very shortly to the actual terms of the Amendment, and not to engage in a Second Reading Debate upon the principle of the Land Tax. I think that when one looks at the Amendment as an Amendment to a tax which, it is admitted at this stage of the Bill, is to come into operation, it must be perfectly obvious that no such Amendment could possibly be accepted. The object of the Amendment is to exempt all industrial premises by whomsoever
owned and by whomsoever used, and the result, of course, would be that the Land Tax would be thrown entirely upon non-industrial land. As far as one can see from the principles which lie behind the tax, there is no possible reason for exempting one class of rent and charging tax upon another.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: That is exactly what you are doing. You are letting off agricultural land.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Noble Lord is not quite accurate in his statement that we are letting off agricultural land. We are letting off agricultural land where the cultivation value is as great as the land value, but not in other cases.

HON. MEMBERS: Friendly societies!

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is another question on which, under pressure from hon. Gentleman opposite, we have said that we are prepared to compromise with them.

Sir D. HERBERT: Then, what about the case of industrial assurance companies?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I shall answer that question when we come to the pertinent Amendment, but if I start now answering a cross-examination on these points, it will delay our proceedings. There seems to be no reason why rents paid by industry should be treated in any different category from any other kind of rent, nor does there seem to us to be any reason why industrial rents should be sacrosanct. Industry has already been de-rated to the extent of £25,000,000 to £30,000,000 and that no doubt is a wise procedure, but only if you substitute for those rates some other means of getting the money. [Laughter.] Someone has to provide—in spite of the laughter of the hon. Member opposite—this £25,000,000 which has to be spent in the course of the year.

Sir JOHN POWER: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what good he is doing to industry if he takes off one impost and puts on another.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Committee he would have appreciated that
this is not a tax on industry, but I do not propose to go into that argument again. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have not proved that!"] I am perfectly satisfied with the clear demonstration given by my hon. Friend behind me. May I put this question to hon. Gentlemen opposite? If industry has to bear a burden, would it prefer that burden to be charged proportionately on the building machinery and improvements on the site, or would it prefer the burden to be on the site value?

Major COLVILLE: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman why industry should bear any further burden at all, in view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about any additional burden being the last straw.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and gallant Member cannot get out of answering that question by asking another.

Sir B. PETO: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to say that I would answer his question unhesitatingly. Plant used in industry would not be used if it were not capable of earning a profit, whereas if you tax merely the site of the industry it is perfectly haphazard, whether it happens to be an industry which is conducted on a number of floors and can extend upwards or whether it is an industry which requires a considerable amount of land. Therefore the hon. and learned Member's proposal is not only a tax on industry but is an unjust and indiscriminate tax.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Baronet has informed me for the first time that rating is on the basis of profit. I was not aware of that proposition.

Sir B. PETO: I said that the tax upon the plant and machinery of an industry was, at any rate, a tax upon something capable of earning a profit.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Does the hon. Baronet suggest that the plant and machinery are capable of earning a profit apart from the site? That seems to be the state of mind of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Lockwood) who said that there was no difference between a piece of land and a share certificate. I should like to see the hon. Member build his house on a share certificate.

Mr. LOCKWOOD rose——

The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that the Solicitor-General has not given way.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I would give way were it not that I am afraid of detaining the Committee too long by continuing to sit down and rise up again in answer to hon. Members opposite.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Then why ask questions?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Because so many questions have been put to me, but the best thing for me to do in order not to delay the Committee further is to state that for the reasons already given the Government clearly and obviously cannot accept the Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A good many ingenious arguments have been addressed to the Committee by the Solicitor-General. He generally is in a position to give some answer and as a rule a specious and, on the face of it, rather convincing answer to any Amendment moved. But for the first time the Committee has seen him entirely floored and he has been unable to produce any argument against this Amendment. He has been driven into putting a number of entirely irrelevant questions to hon. Friends of mine and he said his reason for doing so was because he had been asked a number of questions. I should imagine that the best thing he could do to justify these proposals, if that be possible, would be to try to answer the criticisms addressed to him. He only produced one argument why this Amendment should not be accepted. He said that if he were to accept this Amendment he would then be forced to put a larger burden of taxation on certain other taxpayers and landowners. What an astounding argument! It amounts to this, that he says nothing about the justice of the claim—which I propose in a moment to justify up to the hilt—he does not challenge the justice of the claim, but he says that if he gave way, he would have to put a higher and an unjustified tax on somebody else. It means that these taxes cannot be justified on their merits; that they ought never to have been imposed at all, because, in order to get out of one injustice, you have to commit another. The real
answer is that this fantastic proposal had better be withdrawn altogether.
The learned Solicitor-General is not consistent. He makes exceptions for the friendly societies but not for industries. Why? I suppose because he thinks he is going to get votes out of friendly societies. [HON. MEMBERS: "And industry!"] He is not likely to get votes out of industry, as we see from the course of recent by-elections. I should have thought in these times it was more important to him to consider the number of people who are being thrown out of work by the policy of the Government than the prospect of future votes. I am told that the unemployment figures are up by another 20,000 this week. Unless this Amendment is conceded, you are going to put fresh burdens on industry which will inevitably take away its power of competing, and which must add to the numbers of the unemployed. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has admitted it. He said he was unwilling to add to Income Tax this year, even to balance his Budget, because any burden added to industry would be the last straw. As between an Income Tax of 1s. 8d. in the £, which is what this is, upon the land which industry occupies, and an Income Tax which is paid by industry only when it makes a profit, I have no hesitation in saying that the burden imposed by this system is a far worse burden upon industry than the Income Tax which it pays only when it makes a profit.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly refused to add to Income Tax, and yet, apparently, because he has a down upon industry, forgetting the good advice he has given the House, he imposes this tax. Let the Committee observe that this is a tax which is going to be imposed whether a profit is made or not. The Solicitor-General thought he was going to get away with—I will not say a misrepresentation—but a misunderstanding of an interjection by my hon. Friend below the Gangway, by saying that he learned for the first time that rating was on a profit basis. Well, now industry learns for the first time that it is going to have a new form of Income Tax put on it whether it makes a profit or not. The hon. and learned Gentleman will not get away with the argument that industry cannot suffer be-
cause it is only a tax on rent. I am not going to follow the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) in his long lecture about rent. According to him, rent is universal, and I suppose oratorical rent is the penalty we pay for listening to those lectures. It will be small consolation to the manufacturer who happens to own the freehold of his factory, and who is to be heavily taxed upon the freehold value of his land, to be told that he really is not being taxed on the freehold value for which he has paid, but upon a mysterious rent which he does not pay at all. I do not think that will give him much satisfaction.

Mr. MacLAREN rose——

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The process of debate is best conducted by continuous argument. It may not be the opinion of hon. Members opposite, but it is the opinion expressed by the Chair, and I defer to the appeal of the Chair which has been made several times this evening to conduct debate in an orderly manner. This tax is going to be placed on every industry whether it makes a profit or not. I do not in the least mind what hon. Gentlemen call it, but industry is going to pay, and this will reduce its capacity to employ men, because it will leave a smaller wage fund out of which to pay the wages.

Mr. MacLAREN: If industry is carried on on a site held on a yearly tenancy, does the right hon. Gentleman say that when the landlord takes his rent annually out of the industries he is reducing the wages fund?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I never heard a more irrelevant observation. Where, I ask, in this country do you find a great industry conducted on a site which is held on a yearly rent? I am glad the hon. Gentleman made that interruption, because it shows how completely fallacious the whole argument is. As a matter of fact, all these industries are conducted either in freehold premises or long leasehold premises. Under the Bill the freeholder cannot pass the tax on, and if it is a long lease the long leaseholder cannot pass it on either. Therefore, every industry is going to be hit, and, what is more, the industries which are suffering most today will be the hardest hit of all. The
depressed industry occupying the largest site will pay the largest tax. The industry in populous places will pay a larger measure of tax than the industry which is carried on in a country district. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is on the rent!"] It is a discriminating tax. If you object to rent, why double it by putting a tax on? You discriminate because you put a heavier burden on the man whose works are situated in a populous area and the man who, as a matter of fact, is bringing to that area exactly the kind of development that you want.
We had a lot of talk of the need for action to encourage new industries from the late Lord Privy Seal and other Members of the Government. The President of the Board of Trade volunteered, at Question Time, that he would like an opportunity to make a statement on his success in persuading people to set up new businesses in populous centres where old industries were beginning to fade out. Is this the contribution which is going to encourage new industries to set up on the site of the old steel works or old mills? It is a very remarkable inducement which is going to be offered to them for this purpose. Let the Committee observe this. The President of the Board of Trade has often lectured us in a very kindly way on the importance of industry being far-sighted and of developing well laid out factories, and having the best processes. What is this going to contribute in that regard? You are putting an extra penalty on the industry which has been most far-sighted—the big industry which has bought the land on which it can expand in new development. That industry is going to be taxed specially under this proposal, and a special burden is to be put upon it because it has had the far-sightedness to buy the land for its new development.
We are told how important it is that amenities should be provided for the workers. The industry which has provided amenities is to be specially penalised here. There is the provision of canteens, and there are playing fields which certainly will not be exempted under the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Industries which have been farsighted in their business and generous in their conduct towards their employés are to be selected in order that a special penal
tax may be put upon them. Why? it is not that these industries have profiteered out of an unearned increment in laud. They themselves have created the value of the land by their development and by setting up their factories. As a matter of fact, by setting up factories they have added to the value of the land around them. They themselves have created a value for the community. They have not robbed the community of a value which the community has created. If a factory site has a value beyond the purpose for which it is used, it will pay a further tax. It is not, however, in the public interest that a factory should be converted to another use. It is not in the public interest that a dock or harbour or shipbuilding yard should be turned over to some other use. On the contrary, if it were turned over to some other use, the community would suffer and the people employed there would cease to be employed.
It is perfectly plain that there can be no relief out of any other Amendment that is offered to us. We are not going to be fobbed off by being told that the amount of the tax is to be temporarily reduced while the principle of double taxation is maintained. Once the principle of double taxation is accepted, industry will be ill-advised to place any reliance on the suggested reduction but must insist on complete exemption. We have then the admission of the Government that here is a penalty deliberately put upon industry, a penalty which must reduce its capacity to compete, must reduce its capacity to employ people, and must still further reduce the confidence of those engaged in industry. It is a tax which will fall with the heaviest force upon industries which are most far-sighted, and, of all the contributions which the Government have made to solve the problem of unemployment, this is the most futile.

Mr. J. JONES: We have listened today to a series of lectures on economics by infantile economists, including the last right hon. Gentleman who addressed the House. He seems to imagine that land is the private property of the people who buy and sell it. If he can show me in any of the laws of England that the land of this country belongs to
any individual in law, I would accept his description of the situation. The problem is that money has to be raised. Even the Tories have to raise money sometimes for propaganda purposes. As far as we are concerned this is not a tax upon industry; it is a tax upon that bugbear of industry, the right to rob the people through the private ownership of the soil. I live in a district which has been developed industrially. Lately one of the greatest firms in the world—Fords, Limited—have bought up land which used to be worth only marsh value and was practically useless for industrial purposes. That land has been bought up at a fairly decent price, but we have no right to say that Mr. Ford has created the value. Some people say that Mr. Ford is a splendid employer, but he is a clever business man at the same time—[Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: It is difficult for me to hear the hon. Member if I can hear hon. Members on the Back Benches on the opposite side.

Mr. JONES: This land in my time used to be practically valueless. It is now valuable and it is going to become more valuable as the days go by, but with all Mr. Ford's genius he has not made the Thames. He has not made the facilities for the imports of raw materials and the exports of the goods produced. While we are willing to pay a tribute to Mr. Ford's genius as a great manufacturer, we protest if, because he has bought the land at present prices, he is for ever to become a monopolist of that land. We say that land is an essential part of industrial development, and eventually the taxation of the value of land, most of which value has been created by the labours of the people, will enable industry to develop and to give the people of the country a better chance. In my own locality of West Ham we could buy land 40 years ago for £40 an acre for public improvements. To-day we have to pay £600, and the landlords do not pay a penny for any purpose. As far as we are concerned, the Land Tax is not a tax on industry, but upon the people who have been taxing industry far too long. They have been taking advantage of the people's development and the situation generally, and now they squeal. Even when we make new roads, hon. Members
opposite pocket the swag and say nothing about it. We now ask them to pay one penny in the pound on the increased value of the land which they have pinched from the people in days gone by by legal enactment, and I hope to see the day come when we will pass an Act of Parliament to restore the land to the people.
At present we are asking for only one penny in the pound. Soon we will ask you for the pound. Just as you took the land away, we are going to take it back. I am surprised at the modesty of our Government. The reason we are losing by-elections is because of their modesty. They should go the whole hog. They could not get more votes against them if they went the whole hog than they do now. If you do not accept these proposals now, you will have to swallow a bigger dose later on. The time will come, after the valuation scheme has been carried into effect, when the people of this country will know how they are being robbed by the development of land values. [interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite wandered ail over the shop, from Dan to Beersheba. I cannot wander so far, because I have not travelled so much. When hon. Members opposite talk about this being a tax on industry they are talking with their tongue in their cheek. They know it is a necessary and desirable tax. I was in the House when the De-rating Act went through, relieving industry of 75 per cent. of the rates upon it, and I remember right hon. Gentlemen now sitting opposite telling us that the object of that Bill was not to benefit the landowner or the farmer but to open the way for more employment. I said then as I say now, that we always fear the Greeks when they bring gifts. De-rating has not solved our problem, it has not created more employment. When we meet the manufacturers to discuss wages what do they say when we mention derating?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must keep to the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. JONES: I mentioned that only as an illustration. Belief from taxation, according to the other side, can mean only relief for them. When we propose
relief of taxation for the general body of the people they always turn round and say we are ruining industry. They cannot have it both ways. Giving relief to landowners is a public duty, but relieving the common people of their burdens by placing them on the proper shoulders is an attack upon sacred institutions. We say this tax is justified by all the circumstances of the time, and when the figures are produced after the valuation scheme has been carried into effect I will undertake to say that the people will have the revelation of their lives.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The speech of the Solicitor-General was, as it always is very illuminating, and we on this side have reason to be grateful to him for the ex-plicitness with which he puts all the points in this complicated Bill. We have particular reason to be grateful to him on this occasion, because he is the only Member of the Government to face up to the implications of this tax, and to state the principles which underlie it. He does not deny, and no logically-minded person could deny, that this is a tax upon industry, because in resisting this Amendment, which is designed to remove a burden upon industry, he did not base his reply upon that footing at all. He does not deny that this is fresh taxation upon industry. [Interruption.] No, he never denied that this is fresh taxation.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Member must have misunderstood me. I have more than once pointed out that this it not a tax upon industry.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The hon. and learned Gentleman has never denied that this is fresh taxation, and if it is fresh taxation it is fresh taxation upon every person who bears the tax, including the great industries of the country. So it-is perfectly right to say that he has never denied that it is a fresh tax upon industry. Let us examine the footing upon which he resisted the Amendment. He resisted it in the first place on the ground that industrialists, like everybody else, ought to bear the burden. That was neatly answered by my Noble Friend when he pointed out that an exemption had been made in the case of agriculturists, though they are only exempted to the extent of their cultivation value. It was the second part of the hon. and
learned Member's defence which particularly interested me. It coincides with a defence he has previously put forward. He asked, "Which would industry rather have: would it rather have this tax or would it rather have rates?" So now we know exactly where we are. We know that this is the reimposition of a burden. We removed the rating burden under the De-rating Act, and this is a reimposition of that burden, and when the Solicitor-General airily says, "Oh, would you rather have the burden of rates back again?" we are justified in reminding him that when the De-rating Act was passed the burden was reimposed upon industry in another and more bearable form by means of the Petrol Duty. That was the footing upon which derating was carried out. The rates were removed from industrial hereditaments, and the Petrol Duty was put on in order to provide the money with which the Exchequer reimburses the local authorities for the loss of rates. Therefore, not only have the Government increased the Petrol Duty, and so increased the burden placed on industry to replace the burden of rates, but they are now, on the Solicitor-General's own admission, going to put another burden on industry in order to counterbalance the relief which in-dusty got from rates under de-rating.
The movement of industry in the last decade has been from the highly-congested areas to the open country. Industry has been getting away from the highly-rated and highly-developed areas to areas where the site values were small. That is a highly desirable movement. It is of no advantage to an industry to have a high site value for its works. Now this movement, which it has been the aim of everybody to assist, is to be hampered and hindered by the imposition of this tax, because by their movement into the undeveloped areas they will increase the values of the sites upon which they settle. Therefore, they are having re-imposed upon them by means of the Land Tax a good deal of the burden which they moved out of the congested areas to avoid. On that ground, as well as on every other, this is a tax upon industry a tax to hamper its free movement, and a tax to hinder the development which alone can provide the
Government with the revenue which they desire to squander.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: The statement so often made to-night that this is a tax upon industry has got to be met. What this tax seeks to do is to take a part of what the landlords are now taking in the form of rent. If it were not so, why is it that in Scotland someone has not put works on the top of Ben Nevis? The reason is the existence of the River Clyde and all that comes from the wealth that is created by the presence of a population. Although talking of the tax falling on industry, the other side know perfectly well that there are industrialists who have to pay rent, because all companies are not large enough to own their own land. Those who do own their own sites will make some allowance for it in their balance-sheets.
Take the city of Glasgow. Why do people want sites in that district? Take, for example, the Duke of Montrose. He did not create any of the value of his land. The whole question rests upon the power of the landlord to extract rent. This is not a tax upon industry. It is simply a question of asking this House to give the Government power to get back part of what the landlords now take. I am surprised that there should be any industrialists in this House, and especially a Scotsman, who still desire to help the landlord to go on robbing industry. I am surprised at the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) making such a reference as he did to an hon. Member on this side of the Committee, and I think it would be well if the hon. and learned Member took some lectures on this subject himself and tried to understand some of the economics and real ethics of this question. Rent is not such a simple question as hon. Members opposite seem to think. I will conclude by saying that if this country is going to be freed from the incubus of landlordism, and the power to inflict the continuous tax of rent upon industry alone, this is the first proceeding that ought to be taken towards freeing industry.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 272.

Division No. 343.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Adamson, Ht. Hon. W. (Fife, Witt)
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)


Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)


Altchison, Ht. Hon. Cralgle M.
Benton, G.
Buchanan, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Burgess, F. G.


Ammon, Charles George
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Calne, Hall-, Derwent


Angell, Sir Norman
Bowen, J. W.
Cameron, A. G.


Arnott, John
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cape, Thomas


Aske, Sir Robert
Broad, Francis Alfred
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Ayles, Walter
Brockway, A. Fanner
Charleton, H. C.


Barnes, Alfred John
Bromfield, William
Chater, Daniel


Barr, James
Bromley, J.
Clarke, J. S.


Batey, Joseph
Brooke, W.
Cluse, W. S.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brothers, M.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Knight, Holford
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Compton, Joseph
Lang, Gordon
Romerll, H. G.


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Rowson, Guy


Daggar, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Dallas, George
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Salmon, Major I.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sanders, W. S.


Day, Harry
Leach, W.
Sandham, E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sawyer, G. F.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Scurr, John


Dukes, C.
Lees, J.
Sexton, Sir James


Duncan, Charles
Leonard, W.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Ede, James Chuter
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Edge, Sir William
Lindley, Fred W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Edmunds, J. E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sherwood, G. H.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Logan, David Gilbert
Shield, George William


Egan, W. H.
Longbottom, A. W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Elmley, Viscount
Longden, F.
Shillaker, J. F.


Freeman, Peter
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shinwell, E.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lunn, William
Simmons, C. J.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Macdonald, Gordon (lnce)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sinkinson, George


Gibbins, Joseph
McElwee, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gill, T. H.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Kelghley)


Gillett, George M.
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Glassey, A. E.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gossling, A. G.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smithers, Waldron


Gould, F.
McShane, John James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Manning, E. L.
Sorensen, R.


Gray, Milner
Mansfield, W.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
March, S.
Stephen, Campbell


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coins)
Markham, S. F.
Strauss, G. R.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marley, J.
Sullivan, J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marshall, Fred
Sutton, J. E.


Groves, Thomas E.
Mathers, George
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Matters, L. W.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James
Thurtle, Ernest


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mills, J. E.
Tillett, Ben


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Milner, Major J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Montague, Frederick
Tout, W. J.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morley, Ralph
Townend, A. E.


Harbord, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Vaughan, David


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Mort, D. L.
Viant, S. P.


Harris, Percy A.
Muff, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Muggeridge, H. T.
Walker, J.


Haycock, A. W.
Murnin, Hugh
Wallace, H. W.


Hayday, Arthur
Nathan, Major H. L.
Watkins, F. C.


Hayes, John Henry
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oldfield, J. R.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Herriotts, J.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hicks, Ernest George
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
West, F. R.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Westwood, Joseph


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palin, John Henry
White, H. G.


Hoffman, P. C.
Paling, Wilfrid
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hollins, A.
Palmer, E. T.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hopkin, Daniel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Perry, S. F.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Pole, Major D. G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Price, M. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wise, E. F.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Raynes, W. R.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Richards, R.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Kelly, W. T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kinley, J.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B. Smith.


Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.





NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Foot, Isaac
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Albery, Irving James
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
O'Connor, T. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Peake, Captain Osbert


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Penny, Sir George


Astor, Viscountess
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Atkinson, C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bainiel, Lord
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Beaumont, M. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pybus, Percy John


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Remer, John R.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bilndell, James
Hammersley, S. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hartington, Marquess of
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Boyce, Leslie
Haslam, Henry C.
Ross, Ronald D.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rothschild, J. de


Brass, Captain Sir William
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sasaoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Savery, S. S.


Butler, B. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Campbell, E. T.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hunt, Sir Gerald B.
Smith-Carlngton, Neville W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Somerset, Thomas


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Chadwick. Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Christle, J. A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kindersiey, Major G. M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colville, Major D. J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Cooper, A. Duff
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Cowan, D. M.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cranborne, Viscount
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dalrymple White. Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J, (Hertford)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wells, Sydney R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Meller, R. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


England, Colonel A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Withers, Sir John James


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Womersley, W. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Ferguson, Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive



Fermoy, Lord
Muirhead, A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fielden, E. B.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Mr. Hannon and Mr. Ramsbotham.


Fison, F, G. Clavering
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Division No. 344.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
England, Colonel A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
O'Connor, T. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Ferguson, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fielden, E. B.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Penny, Sir George


Aske, Sir Robert
Ford, Sir P. J.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Astor, Viscountess
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atholl, Duchess of
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Atkinson, C.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Purbrick, R.


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Pybus, Percy John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Beaumont, M. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Boyce, Leslie
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ross, Ronald D.


Bracken, B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hammersley, S. S.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hanbury, C.
Salmon, Major I.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Buchan, John
Haslam, Henry C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Savery, S. S.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Butler, R. A.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Skelton, A. N.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Campbell, E. T.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Somerset, Thomas


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Chapman, Sir S.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Christle, J. A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thompson, Luke


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomson, Sir F.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Colville, Major D. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cooper, A. Duff
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Train, J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cowan, D. M
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Turton, Robert Hugh


Cranborne, Viscount
Lymington, Viscount
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, Sydney R.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Marjoribanks, Edward
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Meller, R. J.
Winterton, Ht. Hon. Earl


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Withers, Sir John James


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Womersley, W. J.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Dixey, A. C.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Eden, Captain Anthony
Muirhead, A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Captain Wallace.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Messer, Fred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Middleton, G.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mills, J. E.


Alpass, J. H.
Harbord, A.
Milner, Major J.


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Montague, Frederick


Angell, Sir Norman
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Arnott, John
Harris, Percy A.
Morley, Raiph


Ayles, Walter
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Barnes, Alfred John
Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham)


Barr, James
Hayday, Arthur
Mort, D. L.


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Muff, G.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Muruin, Hugh


Benson, G.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Naylor, T. E.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Birkett, W. Norman
Herriotts, J.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hicks, Ernest George
Oldfield, J. R.


Bowen, J. W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hoffman, P. C.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hollins, A.
Palin, John Henry


Bromfield, William
Hopkin, Daniel
Palmer, E. T.


Bromley, J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brooke, W.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Perry, S. F.


Brothers, M.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pole, Major D. G.


Burgess, F. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Potts, John S


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, M. P.


Came, Hall-, Derwent
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cameron, A. G.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cape, Thomas
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Raynes, W. R.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R.


Chater, Daniel
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Clarke, J. S.
Kinley, J.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Knight, Holford
Ritson, J.


Compton, Joseph
Lang, Gordon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Romerll, H. G.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Daggar, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rowson, Guy


Dallas, George
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, Wet


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Sanders, W. S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sandham, E.


Day, Harry
Leach, W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Scurr, John


Devlin, Joseph
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lees, J.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dukes, C.
Leonard, W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Duncan, Charles
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shield, George William


Ede, James Chuter
Lindley, Fred W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Edge, Sir William
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shillaker, J. F.


Edmunds, J. E.
Logan, David Gilbert
Shinwell, E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Longbottom, A. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longden, F.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Egan, W. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sinkinson, George


Elmley, Viscount
Lunn, William
Sitch, Charles H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Foot, Isaac
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McElwee, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McKinlay, A.
Sorensen, R.


Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Stephen, Campbell


Gill, T. H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Strauss, G. R.


Gillett, George M.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sullivan, J.


Glassey, A. E
McShane, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Gossling, A. G.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gould, F.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Manning, E. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mansfield, W.
Tillett, Ben


Gray, Milner
March, S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Marcus, M.
Tout, W. J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Markham, S. F.
Townend, A. E.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Marley, J.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marshall, Fred
Vaughan, David


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mathers, George
Viant, S. P.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Matters, L. W.
Walkden, A. G.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maxton, James
Walker, J.




Wallace, H. W.
White, H. G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Watkins, F. C.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Wise, E. F.


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Welsh, James (Paisley)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)



Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


West, F. R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Paling.


Westwood, Joseph
Wilson, J. (Oldham)

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment that I call is the first one on page 2209, which covers a very large number of Amendments, and I think we might have a general discussion on playing fields.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does that include all the Amendments, which cover not only playing fields, but also recreation grounds, sports clubs, camping grounds and clubs?

The CHAIRMAN: I think so.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I beg to move, in page 19, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) is used as the site of any park, garden, or open space which is open to the public as of right; or
(b) is used as the site of any woodland, park, garden, or open space reasonable access to which is enjoyed by the public or by the inhabitants of the locality where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, that access is of public benefit; or
(c) is used as a site of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme whether framed before or after the passing of this Act for the development of the area of which the land forms part and where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public or in view of the character of the surroundings or neighbourhood that the land should be so kept free from buildings; or
(d) is used as the site of any and which is bona fide used for the purpose of games or other recreation where the Commissioners are satisfied that the land is so used under some agreement with the owner which as originally made could not be determined for a period of at least five years or where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, other circumstances render it probable that the land will contnue to be so used.
The Amendment raises the whole question of the exemption of open spaces and sports and recreation grounds from the application of the Land Value Duty, and as you have indicated, Sir Robert, we are to have a general discussion of these questions in view of the various Amendments on the Paper. I suggest that my Amendment is one which covers
practically all the points with which we are anxious to deal, and I would remind the Committee that it is framed in the precise terms of the provision which was inserted in the Finance Act, 1909–10, which exempted such open spaces and sports grounds from the provisions of the Undeveloped Land Duty. I recognise with gratitude that the Government have gone so far as to meet the claims which are raised in the Amendment in paragraph (a) and have put on the Paper an Amendment which covers this particular point, but it does not carry us nearly far enough. After all, we are dealing here with a question which I hope may be approached in no mere partisan spirit and which affects very closely indeed an enormous section of our population throughout the whole country. We are asking, not for an opportunity of evading the application of a Land Value Duty where it may be properly imposed, but that it should not apply to purposes which are strictly of the nature of public purposes and in the public interest.
The first paragraph of the Amendment is, as I have indicated, covered by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, but paragraphs (b) and (c) deal with other open spaces, access to which is enjoyed by the public and is a public benefit; and I would like the Committee to observe that the one underlying argument on which we recommend this Amendment is that it deals with the public interest. We maintain that there are many places, such as woodlands, parks and gardens, access to which is at present given to the public and which ought to continue as they are, free from any additional taxation. It is in the public interest that such properties should remain open for public access. In paragraph (c) we deal also with the case of land
kept free of buildings in pursuance of any denite scheme. … for the development of the area of which the land forms part, and where. … it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public or in view of the character of the surroundings or neighbourhood that the land should be so kept free from buildings.
I have no doubt that the Solicitor-General will refer us to the Government Amendment which has been put down to the Town Planning Bill, and will suggest that that substantially meets the case, but I want to meet that argument by saying, first, that we are very anxious to have this matter cleared up in the Finance Bill. We want to have it quite clear in this taxing Statute what is to be taxed and what is to be exempted. In the second place, I do not think that the point, is fully covered in the Town and Country Planning Bill, because that Measure only deals with undertakings given by landowners restricting the use of their land. Under the Finance Bill, such undertakings or restrictions would have to be binding upon purchasers in order to be covered under the First Schedule of this Bill and enter into the valuation.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is provided for in Clause 26 of the Town and Country Planning Bill.

Mr. MILLAR: There are many restrictions which are not so provided for, and we want to make it perfectly clear that purposes of the character referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Amendment may be continued in the public interest, and that land subject to these purposes shall not be subject to the Land Tax. Paragraph (d) deals with a very large class of cases of lands used bona fide for the purposes of games or other recreations. Under the Act of 1910, it was left to the Commissioners to satisfy themselves that the land is so used under an agreement which could not be determined for at least five years, or to consider whether the circumstances rendered it probable that the land would continue to be so used. I submit that that is a perfectly reasonable view. We are dealing here with an enormous number of various interests throughout the country, and when we are doing everything we can to encourage the provision of additional recreational facilities, in connection with our National Playing Fields Association and other organisations, the Government really ought to meet us substantially on this point.
I suggest to the Front Bench that they have no idea of the number of particular interests which are specially represented in connection with our sports and recreation grounds. It is all very well to
suggest that this is a class matter, but it is nothing of the kind. An immense number of workers and artisans are closely identified with the various sports clubs that we desire to have exempted. We desire that all cases of private clubs or associations who hold land for bona fide purposes of sports and recreation should be covered. I have received a number of representations with regard to the various interests with desire this Amendment to be pressed, and perhaps I may be allowed, as a Scottish Member, to refer to the clubs and other associations in Scotland. I have there a memorandum showing the number of associations comprising sports clubs which have sent special representations on this matter to Members of the House. They include the Scottish Rugby Union, with 127 clubs; the Scottish Cricket Union, with 80; the Scottish Hockey Union, with 90: the Scottish Golfing Union, with 371; the Scottish Lawn Tennis Association, with 230; the Scottish Bowling Association, whose clubs owning their own grounds number no fewer than 546; and the Caledonian Curling Club, with 505 constituent associations. All of these are directly interested in these recreational facilities. They are only a small section of the interests represented to-night in this House, but I desire to voice their view, and, if I may be allowed to do so, as the representative of a Division where there are a very large number of clubs, golf links, and bowling greens which provide facilities for healthy recreation for a very large section of our population, I would ask the Government to consider this Amendment and give effect to its provisions.
The question about which we are specially concerned is this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already indicated that he is not going to deal with a certain class of wealthy clubs run merely for profit, but has he considered the very large number of working-men's and other clubs which are not being run for profit, but which are being run simply on the lines of providing a sufficient revenue for meeting the expenses of the club or, it may be, a very small sum for interest on capital for the buildings which have to be provided? We urge on the right hon. Gentleman that these cases ought to be very specially considered. I am satisfied that the purpose of the Amendment is
one that can and ought to be met. It is not quite true to say that these bodies can escape taxation, as the Chancellor indicated the other day. It appears to me that, even under any undertaking that might be given under the Town Planning Act, they will certainly not escape the very large burden of taxation which will be thrown upon them. This is a matter on which the country feels very strongly and I do not believe there is any bigger social issue raised in the Bill. If we are going to develop an A 1 race, we want to afford it the greatest opportunity for health and recreation, and we want to see these facilities provided for all classes of our population. It is because I regard this Amendment as not directed from any one source, or trying to give effect to the interests or the feelings or the wishes of any one section of the House, that I move it in the hope and belief that the Government will accept it.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I consider that this is the most important portion of the Bill. In view of the fact that I spend all the time that I am not in the House of Commons in social service, either for the purpose of education or of physical education, I have my name down to a- great number of Amendments, which include such things as land used for boys' and girls' clubs, scouts' and guides' camping grounds, private school grounds, county and private cricket and football grounds, all of which are covered by this Amendment. I deplore the fact that such a subject should be raised in the House of Commons at all. I had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing forward certain exemptions, would have exempted all land used exclusively for sports, provided it was not run for the financial profit either of members, shareholders or proprietors. I am not going to speak for any club run solely for profit but on behalf of playing fields as such, which, I consider, are beneficial to the health of the country as a whole. I appreciate the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already acceded to a portion of the Amendments down in my name, and for that, speaking on behalf of the societies which I represent, I am naturally exceedingly grateful. But I should like to plead that the balance of those Amendments which has not yet been conceded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be
accepted under what he terms "for purposes beneficial to the community." I believe that the clubs and such bodies for which I am pleading are really of benefit to the community as a whole.
I take, for instance, Lords Cricket Ground, the headquarters of the M.C.C. who are the great governing body of cricket. They not only provide cricket on Lords Cricket Ground for themselves but send teams to secondary and public schools, to the Colonies and Dominions and to foreign countries. [Interruption.] I am trying to make my speech as short as possible in view of the fact that I believe every Member of the Committee is anxious to say something on this matter, alhough very few hon. Members will realise their ambition. They foster good relations by sending teams to the Colonies and Overseas. At the present time there is a team of the M.C.C. playing in Holland. Many elementary school children are at Lords every day without any payment whatever. On 21 evenings there is coaching of elementary school boys at Lords by first-class professionals. If I send my son to be coached, although I am a member of the M.C.C., I have to pay for him. The elementary school boy receives coaching free, and I am very glad that he does. In September Lords Ground is used by working boys and working men. I am taking the M.C.C. at Lords as an example of the many governing bodies of sport. Were Lords Cricket Ground to be taxed it would not cripple Lords and the members of the M.C.C. as such, but it would prevent the M.C.C. helping boys and girls and such like. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because they would have so much less revenue. By sending teams overseas, I believe that they are doing just as much good for the world in general as the League of Nations. [Interruption.] If any hon. Gentleman has been, as I have, with a team on the other side of the water, whether on the Continent of Europe or further afield, he will realise that these cricket and football teams do a great deal to cement friendship between one nation and another.
I am also asked to speak on behalf of the Club Cricket Conference with a membership of no fewer than 650 clubs. They also do a very great deal to help cricket, because it is one of their main objects, that when a club joins the Cricket Conference they invite them to
do everything possible to foster cricket among elementary school children. In the majority of cases they do that. The same hardship will come upon golf courses, bowling greens, lawn tennis clubs, hockey clubs and similar clubs. I have in my constituency probably more clubs of various sorts than are to be found in any other constituency. These clubs are not run by the rich. Very few of them are in the hands of rich people. They are run by the poor, and if the land which they use is to be taxed it will mean that they will not be able to pay the rent to the landlords, or if it is their own ground they will have to sell it. In the interests of the health of the nation I consider that this land should be exempt.
The Rugby Union, another great governing body, do a tremendous amount on behalf of sport. In the M.C.C. and the Rugby Union not one penny of profits goes to any member of the club. All the money made either at Lords or at Twickenham or wherever it may be made goes back into the game in one form or other to help in the furtherance of the sport. In the Rugby Union there are 850 clubs, including elementary, secondary and public schools. All these clubs will be adversely affected by this taxation. By putting this tax on private playing grounds whether they be cricket, fotball, lawn tennis, bowls, or other grounds, there is great risk that many of the clubs will have to close down. The result will be that many of the people affected will be forced to go to the recreation grounds in the public parks. For three years I have been a member of the London County Council Parks Committee and I can assure hon. Members that there is the greatest difficulty at the present time to find sufficient pitches for all those who want them. Why should those who are willing to pay their own way by having a small club of their own, therefore leaving the recreation grounds in the parks for those who can least afford to pay, be taxed when they are helping others who are less able to help themselves? In the interests of the health of mind and body I implore the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this matter. I see on the benches opposite an honourable doctor——

Mr. McSHANE: Is not that a contradiction in terms?

Mr. CAMPBELL: ——the hon. Member who beat me at the last election, and, when I talk about the health of the children of the nation, he laughs. I am serious. I see so much of the people who are down and out and who want someone to speak for them in the House of Commons that I realise that this proposition of the Government to tax the land owned by these clubs is going to be a great hardship to many of the very poorest people in the country. Therefore, I implore the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether he cannot find some means of helping such clubs as come within the confines of the Amendment.

Mr. REMER: In the few minutes I propose to detain the Committee I want to refer to the question of golf courses. I claim to be one of the oldest golfers in the United Kingdom; it is 42 years since I first struck a golf ball. In my opinion the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not given the Consideration to the question of golf courses to which it is entitled. He views this subject from the point of view that in taxing golf courses he is taxing the rich, but the kind of people who are really going to be taxed are not the rich golfers but the poor golfers. There are two kinds of golf courses in the country. There is the golf course that can only be reached by the motor car, and there is the golf course which can be reached by train, tube and omnibus. The golf courses which can be reached by the train, tube and omnibus, are generally near a town and are precisely the courses upon which men of smaller means play, but they are also the courses which will pay the largest amount of taxation under the Bill.
I see the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) in the Committee. She has reached the honourable position of being a semi-finalist in the Parliamentary golf handicap. The course upon which the Noble Lady plays her golf is Sandwich, which will not be subject to this taxation because it is a private course and there is no building value attaching to it. But take a course which is near the centre of London like North Middlesex or Hendon, which are easily reached by people of
small means, they will be taxed to a considerable extent by the Bill as it is at present drafted. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that this is a case for his consideration. I am making no political capital out of it, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot accept this Amendment, will before the Report stage do something to deal with the kind of golf courses to which I have referred. There can be no greater advantage to the country than to have a great many more golfers playing the game and learning the rudiments of the game, because it appeals to those of middle age as few other games do. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something for these golf courses. Unless the right hon. Gentleman does something in this respect I believe that a great many courses used by those of slender means who have started to play the game, will have to close their doors. [Laughter.] I am sorry for the hilarity of hon. Members opposite. After all, golf club houses have doors. I appeal to the Chancellor to do something to deal with the situation in the interests of a great many people in this country.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I fear that I have no special athletic achievement on which to base my appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I would like to put the case for the Amendment on broad, general, national grounds. It is, perhaps, not unnatural that, while I support this Amendment, I prefer the words of an Amendment that stands on the Paper in the name of myself and some of my colleagues. Rut the words of the Amendment represent the public's opinion outside this House and inside this House in the year 1910. There will be general agreement that on most social matters which were at issue in those days there has been an enormous general advance. Matters which were supposed to be the divisors of parties for generations, have become the commonplaces of all parties. There is no question that there has been no greater, swifter and more general development of opinion than with regard to the playing fields of the country. Great medical authorities, social workers, religious leaders, party leaders of all parties, have combined, without any sense of special political opinion, in
blessing this great movement. For a great movement it is.
This is a Finance Bill, and every day we are dealing with questions of investment. There could be no greater investment for the nation, apart from purely financial interest, than the typical well-being of the youth of this country. That has been so well recognised that during the last few years one of the Princes of the Royal House has lent himself, with members of all political parties and all leaders of religious opinion, to this very movement, which finds its expression in the principle of this Amendment. As far as I understand it, the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards meeting this appeal from almost the whole of the Committee, falls very much short of the reasonable requirements of the case.
Some statistics were placed before the Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) with regard to Scotland and its amateur sports, and the devotion of the population of Scotland as a whole to those sports, but if you multiplied by six those very striking figures, you would only faintly reflect the devotion to the interest in and the benefit from the playing fields of this country. When I say playing fields, I do not by any means confine the term to golf courses, or to Lord's cricket ground or to county cricket grounds all of which, I think myself, are entitled to very favourable consideration on their own merits. When I speak of playing fields, I mean those small plots right in the centre of valuable building sites, which afford all too infrequently, some opportunities of physical recreation to the least privileged of the citizens of our country. If by any means, or any tax, no matter what it may be, we lessen either the inducement to preserve such playing fields, or the user of them by those who so sorely need them, we are doing a national disservice. I feel that I speak for my hon. Friends around me when I plead for a much wider recognition of this question. It ought not to be limited by merely tacking on these sites, as it were, to an Amendment in the Town Planning Bill now before Parliament.
May I speak quite frankly and say that I am sure that the general opinion of the House of Commons is that we ought
to go very much further than that. These pieces of precious land are valuable, for building purposes, or purely material development purposes, and it should be the concern of the Government of the day, no matter how composed, to bend their best energies not only to preserving, but to increasing them. What would be the effect of the Bill, as it stands, on these sites? It cannot help leaving them unprotected, or driving them into the building market. It can have no other result. I am certain that the House of Commons desires to prevent that. I wonder if I might make an appeal to the Government on this matter. Public opinion is behind this or a similar Amendment. It is the duty of the House of Commons, in Committee, or in any other form of its public expression, to rise above the ordinary play of party forces, to meet a great and clearly demonstrated national demand, and that is what this demand is. Whether it has reached the Chancellor of the Exchequer or not, I do not know, but there are very few Members of the Committee who will dissent from my statement. As to the immediate practicability of meeting this demand in full, I am not prepared to judge, but it should be met substantially, and, when I say substantially, I mean the demand as a whole, subject to necessary exceptions. I am sure that if the matter goes to a Division, the Committee will be very dominantly and largely in favour of putting some such exemption as this on the Statute Book.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: One may safely premise that nobody will discuss this problem from a partisan point of view, and I am sure the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are as keen on an A1 population as anbyody else in the House. There are, however, certain real difficulties about this problem, and I think all Members will appreciate that there may well be different views as to how it should be approached. In addition to the Amendment which we are now discussing there are a great number of other Amendments on the Order Paper which deal with the problem in a very different way, and it is a little difficult in the discussion of this Amendment to deal with all the different aspects which are presented by those other Amendments. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the
fact that on a later page of the Paper there is an Amendment in his name. That Amendment is one which raises the problem in an extraordinarily different form from the one which we are now discussing, and is one which would be far more easy to meet than the one under discussion. [Interruption.] Hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite, I am sure, will not assist the cause of playing fields by jeering whenever the Government suggest that there is a general case for any particular Amendment.
Perhaps I may first of all deal with the Amendment before us, and then deal more generally with the question of playing fields. The Amendment which is now before the Committee is one which, in the view of the Government it would be quite impossible to accept, and largely for the reason that the Amendment is really dealing with the state of affairs long prior to effective town planning, and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Amendment are wholly inappropriate to the present state of affairs. They are just those types of paragraphs against which we were so eloquently warned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) during the course of the Second Reading—Amendments the meaning of which it is really extraordinarily difficult to know. Take paragraph (b), which refers to land which
is used as the site of any … garden or open space reasonable access to which is enjoyed by the public or by the inhabitants of the locality where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, that access is of public benefit.
How are the Commissioners to say, if someone opens his gardens on Sunday afternoons to the public of the locality, whether that is a case which is meant to be excluded? It is a perfectly impossible set of words for any practical administration of the Bill. If one cames to deal with paragraph (c), there again, obviously, one is dealing with a state of affairs before town planning, because it is trying to exempt land which would clearly be scheduled under the Town Planning Act or a Town Planning Order for a particular use. That, of course, is now done appropriately under the Town Planning Bill, and not under such a vague and general exemption as this. Those are two reasons why it would be quite
impossible to accept the Amendment in this form.
On the general question of playing-fields, I think the Committee will realise that there are a very large number of widely different sorts of playing-fields. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Campbell) mentioned that as far as he was concerned, he was speaking on behalf of what one might call the non-commercial playing-fields, that is, the non-profit earning playing-fields, The Amendment deals with every kind of playing-field, whether commercial or not. It will exclude all the racecourses of the country, which hardly seems rational, to say the least of it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] The hon. Gentleman asks why not, but he says it with a smile which obviously shows that he sees the distinction between the two. As regards those plots of land which were referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean), plots of valuable land which are in the heart of the city, they are, I presume, in a large number of cases, not owned by the associations or bodies which use them. That raises a different question altogether, because there it would not be a question of exempting the user under the Bill, but the owner, and the owner, of course, would not be the sports association or other body.
That might be perfectly all right in those cases where you have a benevolent person who permits a user at a nominal rent, but, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are many cases, in and around London for instance, where full commercial rents are charged; and there can be no reason why, in the case, say, of tennis courts which are hired out at so much a game, the rent which the landlord receives for that land, which may be as high as the rent he would receive for it if there were buildings on it, should be exempted from the tax. The problem is different from the case where the land is given, or substantially given, by a benevolent person in order to provide recreation for the people who would otherwise not get it. These are two cases which obviously widely differ, and it is quite clear—and I know the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate this—that unless we are extraordinarily careful, we will get evasions of every
kind through a wide exemption of this sort which is quite unqualified. It is that evasion that we desire to obviate. We do not in the least desire to cut out the genuine playing fields from exemption.

Mr. DIXEY: Why did you put it in the Bill?

11.0 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, he will hear. By our method, by which we have attempted to deal with the genuine playing field, we believe that we have met all the genuine and proper eases. First of all, as regards playing fields generally, all those owned by charities will be exempt, that is to say, all school playing fields, roughly speaking. Those mentioned by the hon. Member for Bromley, which are run by public elementary schools, will also be excluded. On the other hand, those owned by private profit making schools will not be exempt. The playing fields owned by the National or London Playing Fields Association will be excluded because they all come within the definition of charities. All those owned by local authorities will be excluded as being the property of local authorities. In addition to that there will be the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Bill. We believe that the appropriate place to deal with the user of land is in town planning and not in this Bill.
There is a provision in the first Schedule of this Bill by which, if there is a user binding upon the purchaser, that user or that restriction must be taken into account in the valuation. Take the case of a playing-field which it is desired to perpetuate as a playing-field. Let me take the example of Lords which the hon. Member gave. It will be open to the owners of Lords, the Marylebone Cricket Club, to enter into an undertaking with the London County Council, or the appropriate town planning authority, immediately after the passing of the Town Planning Bill, that that land shall not be used except for the purposes of sport, or however they like to express their undertaking, in perpetuity. Whether it is in perpetuity or not they can choose. The result of that will be that to a very great extent the land will be de-valued in consequence of that encumbrance. [Interruption.] Some hon.
Member says "No, no." If Lords cricket ground can be used for the purpose of sport and is not available for other purposes that must obviously devalue it to a great extent. I do not say that it will entirely deprive it of value, but it will de-value it to a great extent.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: Will not the value of Lords be the value that any body of capitalists would give for Lords? [Interruption.]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The answer to that is that it depends on the form of the undertaking. If the user is limited to the Marylebone Cricket Club for the purposes of sport, then obviously a capitalist would not buy it with that limited user; and if they like so to limit it in perpetuity then it has no purchaser, and it must be de-valued to that extent. It may be that the Marylebone Cricket Club are making profits out of it and therefore it is valuable to that extent, and the extent of its value will be measured by the profits made.

Mr. P. OLIVER: And they are making those profits for the good of cricket in general, and it is on that ground it ought to be treated as a charity.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the proposition of the hon. Member is correct, that their profits are all devoted necessarily to the general purpose of promoting sport among the public, they will be entitled to be relieved as a charity under the Income Tax Acts. [Interruption.] I appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip). I do not know whether that condition of affairs applies to the Marylebone Cricket Club or not, but if there is a club which devotes the whole of its profits or whatever it makes—its income from investments—to the general advancement of sport amongst the public generally, then that is a charitable object.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: I do not want to interrupt the Solicitor-General, but he appeals to me and silence might be taken as assent. I distinctly differ from the statement that any body which devotes its money entirely to the propagation or popularisation of sport is charitable, and I believe there are decisions in the courts entirely contrary to that opinion.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will repeat what I said. I think I made it clear that where moneys were necessarily devoted to the advance of sport for the public generally and not for any particular body of persons, it would be, in my view, a charity. [Interruption.]

Mr. REID: If that is the Solicitor-General's definition of a charity, would it not have been better if he had put those words in the Bill?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) will agree with me when I say that to attempt to define charity in this Bill would be almost impossible and a most unfortunate thing. The position, so far as we are concerned, is that we are as anxious as hon. Members opposite to give exemptions to those lands which are bona fide Used for the purpose of sport in the sense in which the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Campbell) put the case. We are not prepared to exempt purely commercial sporting grounds, whether they be run for profit, or for the purposes of the members who are well able to pay for it; but we believe that, by the adoption of this process which I have suggested under the Town and Country Planning Bill in regard to charitable exemptions, the matter can be substantially dealt with, and will be substantially dealt with.
If it is found when the Town and Country Planning Bill is in force, and the required undertaking is given, there are any substantial cases of the class I have mentioned which are not relieved from the tax, we shall be prepared to consider them with a view to giving them exemption. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite might, I think, give us some credit for having thought out this problem. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] The reason why I say hon. Members might give us some credit for having thought out the problem is because we have done so. Really, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite must not think that they have an absolute monopoly of sincerity. Therefore, the position, so far as we can see it, on this Amendment—and it is impossible at the moment to go further than this Amendment—apart from the general statement that I have made, is that we are quite unable to accept the
Amendment, because of the reasons which I have stated with regard to paragraphs (b) and (c) and because, with regard to paragraph (d), under that heading there is too general an exemption without any means of controlling evasions.

Sir D. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Would not the Solicitor-General be in order under your Ruling at the start of these proceedings if he dealt not only with the Amendment formally moved, but also with the Amendment in my name, for which he expressed a very decided preference?

The CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with all matters covering playing fields in each of the Amendments on the Paper, including that of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not for me to dictate to the Solicitor-General what he shall say.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the speech of the learned Solicitor-General to which we have just listened will have occasioned very great disappointment in all parts of the House. Although he treated the subject sympathetically and spent a considerable time in explaining to us the difficulties that he found in accepting particular parts of the Amendment before us, he ended up by giving us no hope whatever that he was going to produce any solution of his own for the difficulties which we see before us I am not so much interested in paragraphs (b) and (c) as I am in paragraph (d) and in some of the other Amendments which stand in the names of hon. Friends behind me. Nobody who has been in close contact with the social life of the people in any big city can fail to have been struck intensely by the tremendous and increasing demand that there is among all classes of the community for the opportunity to use their leisure in outdoor sports and recreations, and nobody can have failed to be impressed by the difficulty, the increasing difficulty, that these people have in finding grounds on which they may play.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: Who stole the commons?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Those of us who are working to try to secure that there shall be playing fields or opportunities
for these outdoor sports in our big towns have been profoundly discouraged by the imposition of this new tax, which must make it more difficult, as the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) said, to get these grounds in future than it has been in the past. I want particularly to put in a plea for what I may call the casual playing grounds of the people. I am not going to dwell upon the case of Lords or of the commercial grounds of which the Solicitor-General spoke, but I am thinking of those numerous fields and little plots of land, which are to be found in all big cities, which are kept free from buildings a little longer, but which sooner or later perhaps will go into building, but at any rate while they are free they are being used for recreation or camping grounds. Surely, when the Government profess this sympathy with the object of this Amendment, it is not beyond their wits to devise some means of preserving these open spaces a little bit longer.
What surprises me even more is that this Amendment to the Town and Country Planning Bill which is being discussed upstairs and to which allusion has been made on several occasions already this evening does contain a provision which appears to me to be equally applicable to this tax. I think it is very likely that many hon. Members have not seen the new Clause which it is proposed to put into the Town and Country Planning Bill, a Clause moved by the Minister of Health, and I would like to read the relevant Sub-section of it. It is a Clause dealing with the subject of betterment.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The Clause with which I was dealing was Clause 26, which deals with undertakings.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a Clause which deals with the claims that can be made by local authorities for betterment, where betterment has been brought about by the coming into operation of the provisions in the Town Planning Bill. It reads thus:
Where any property in respect of which a claim is made under the last preceding Sub-section, or any part of such a property, is being used for purposes of agriculture or of sport or recreation, the owner thereof may, within twenty-eight days after the receipt by him of the claim, give notice in writing to the responsible authority requiring them to withdraw the claim so far
as it relates to any property used for any such purpose as aforesaid, and to defer making a fresh claim until the property becomes used for some purpose which is not such a purpose as aforesaid.
There, in a nutshell, is the provision that I ask the Government to put into this Bill. If the land is going to be used for some other purpose than sport or recreation, let the tax come upon it. If this is the principle which the Government themselves think sufficiently practical to put into their Town and Country Planning Bill, sufficiently important to cause them to deprive local authorities of the value of any claims that they could make for betterment, and sufficiently workable to make themselves responsible for it, is it not equally valuable and available for the purposes of this Bill? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will still further consider this matter and will give us some concession on these lines.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: The Solicitor-General made a remark which causes me great regret. He said that the Government are not going to exempt the playing fields of private schools. He has told us that he has thought out this problem, and I give the Government credit for wishing to preserve as many open spaces as possible for the public. These playing fields of private schools provide hundreds of open spaces for the public, which are necessary for the health of the people, and in all cases these playing fields already pay, and in some cases very heavily, in Income Tax under Schedule A. I have here a list of private schools—efficient schools—in all parts of the country which pay heavily under Schedule A. It may be objected that to exempt private schools would put a premium on inefficient schools, but the exemption limit of £120 covers nearly all the inefficient schools, and in any case the site value of the inefficient schools is very small. I only want to enter a protest, in the interests of the health and education of the community, against this double taxation of playing fields, the exemption of which justice and the national welfare demand.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It has been truly said by many speakers on this subject that there is a general feeling in the House, and it is certainly shared on this side, that we should do nothing which
will penalise genuine cases. We are anxious to do whatever we can to encourage and help the extension of such sport and recreation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) appreciated the difficulties of defining a playing field in his De-rating Bill, and, if I am not mistaken, he did not de-rate playing fields, because of the difficulty of definition. There are a great many cases such as the right hon. Gentleman referred to, where land which is being held for building purposes is in the meantime thrown open to the use of the children of the neighbourhood. That is a very desirable thing, and I should be sorry if anything in this Bill prevented the continued use of such land for such purposes.
I am quite prepared to do this. The Amendment now before the Committee is, for reasons which my learned Friend has explained, quite unacceptable, and would be quite impracticable. It goes a great deal further, particularly in paragraph (d), than I shall be prepared to go. I cannot hold out any hope at all that I should be willing to exempt race-courses, polo grounds and private playing-fields, for very good reasons, and out of the pocket of the general taxpayer to subsidise private and, in many cases, profitable institutions of that character. But I believe if words can be devised which will exempt every genuine playing-field, I am quite prepared to incorporate those words in the Bill. The Amendment of the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) offers a more promising opening for attaining the object that most members of the Committee desire to achieve, and I should be quite prepared to give an undertaking between now and Report that we will work upon the idea of that Amendment, and see whether it is possible to draft an Amendment which will meet the conditions which I have mentioned.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a conciliatory statement, but I very much fear, unless we carry with us the party above the Gangway, we shall not represent, as one wishes specially to do in a matter of this kind, the House of Commons as a whole and, if it is possible between now and Report for hon. Members above the Gangway to take part in the framing of this concordat on the question of playing
fields, that would be the best solution, reserving absolutely to all parties their full liberty of action without any restriction of any kind on the Report stage. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared in effect to accept the Amendment in the names of hon. Members below the Gangway and myself, I shall be delighted to accept that offer.

Mr. P. SNOWDEM: What I said was that it might be possible to hammer out something of the idea embodied in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. He must not assume that I shall be prepared to accept his Amendment in the form in which it appears on the Paper. In regard to his suggestion, if the three parties are prepared to meet together between now and Report and see what they can do in the matter, I shall be quite willing.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: As my name is also attached to the Amendment might I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer this question. The Amendment has been down on the Paper for about a fortnight and has been under the consideration of the Chancellor and the Solicitor-General. It has been perfectly clear that it has been separated from the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend and one part of it has already been accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the first part. What is there now that is objectionable in the other part of the Amendment which cannot be accepted here and now, or what

are the objections to it, which can be stated shortly after a consideration of at least a fortnight? Before a ground is exempted from the tax, it has to be a playing ground, it has to be bona fide used as a playing ground and it has to be so bona fide used to the satisfaction of the Commissioners themselves; and, attached to that, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not deprived of any tax, is this, if perchance that land is subsequently used within a period of five years and used profitably.

Mr. McGOVERN: On a point of Order. Is it in order, when the Committee is sitting, for anyone to talk behind the Speaker's Chair?

The CHAIRMAN: It is in order as long as such talking does not interfere with what is being said in the Chamber.

Mr. McGOVERN: May I draw your attention to the fact that someone is sitting in the Speaker's Chair?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: In reply to the hon. and learned-Member's question, the Amendment is not acceptable because it is drawn sufficiently wide to include some of the sports grounds which I say it is undesirable should be included. We cannot accept it in the form in which it appears on the Paper.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 250.

Division No. 345.]
AYES.
[11.28 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brass, Captain Sir William
Colfox, Major William Philip


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Briscoe, Richard George
Colman, N. C. D.


Albery, Irving James
Broadbent, Colonel J.
Colville, Major D. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Cooper, A. Duff


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Buchan, John
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cowan, D. M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Cranborne, Viscount


Aske, Sir Robert
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Astor, Viscountess
Butler, R. A.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Atkinson, C.
Campbell, E. T.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Carver, Major W. H.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Dalkeith, Earl of


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey


Balniel, Lord
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Beaumont, M. W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Dawson, Sir Philip


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm-, W.)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Dixey, A. C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Chapman, Sir S.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Christle, J. A.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Boyce, Leslie
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Elliot, Major Walter F.


Bracken, B.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
England, Colonel A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Salmon, Major I.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro'& Whitby)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Ferguson, Sir John
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Savery, S. S.


Fielden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Ford, Sir P. J.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Skelton, A. N.


Fremantle, Lieut.- Colonel Francis E.
Lymington, Viscount
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smithers, Waldron


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Somerset, Thomas


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Glyn, Major H. G. C.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Gower, Sir Robert
Marjoribanks, Edward
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Meller, R. J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Thompson, Luke


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mulrhead, A. J.
Thomson, Sir F.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Hammersley, S. S.
O'Connor, T. J.
Train, J.


Hanbury, C.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Harbord, A.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Penny, Sir George
Warrender, Sir Victor


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wells, Sydney R.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Purbrick, R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Pybus, Percy John
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ramsbotham, H.
Withers, Sir John James


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Hurd, Percy A.
Remer, John R.
Womersley, W. J.


Inskip, Sir Thomas
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Iveagh, Countess of
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)



Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ross, Ronald D.
Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rothschild, J. do
and Mr. Duncan Millar.


Lamb, Sir J. O.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.



Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brothers, M.
Duncan, Charles


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Ede, James Chuter


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Edmunds, J. E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Buchanan, G.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Alpass, J. H.
Burgess, F. G.
Egan, W. H.


Ammon, Charles George
Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Foot, Isaac


Angell, Sir Norman
Cape, Thomas
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Arnott, John
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Ayles, Walter
Charleton, H. C.
Gibbins, Joseph


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Chater, Daniel
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)


Barnes, Alfred John
Clarke, J. S.
Gill, T. H.


Barr, James
Cluse, W. S.
Gillett, George M.


Batey, Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gossling, A. G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Cove, William G.
Gould, F.


Bennett, Sir E N. (Cardiff, Central)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Daggar, George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Benson, G.
Dallas, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Dalton, Hugh
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bowen, J. W.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypoot)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Groves, Thomas E.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Day, Harry
Grundy, Thomas W.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bromfield, William
Devlin, Joseph
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Bromley, J.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)


Brooke, W.
Dukes, C.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)




Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shield, George William


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
McShane, John James
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shillaker, J. F.


Harris, Percy A.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Shinwell, E.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Manning, E. L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Haycock, A. W.
Mansfield, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Hayday, Arthur
March, S.
Sinkinson, George


Hayes, John Henry
Marcus, M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Markham, S. F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Marley, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marshall, Fred
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mathers, George
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Herriotts, J.
Matters, L. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hicks, Ernest George
Maxton, James
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Messer, Fred
Sorensen, R.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Middleton, G.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hoffman, P. C.
Mills, J. E.
Stephen, Campbell


Hollins, A.
Milner, Major J.
Strauss, G. R.


Hopkin, Daniel
Montague, Frederick
Sullivan, J.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sutton, J. E.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morley, Ralph
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Mort, D. L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Muff, G.
Tout, W. J.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Townend, A. E.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Murnin, Hugh
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Naylor, T. E.
Vaughan, David


Kelly, W. T.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Viant, S. P.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Noel Baker, p. J.
Walkden, A. G.


Kinley, J.
Oldfield, J. R.
Walker, J.


Kirkwood, D.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wallace, H. W.


Lang, Gordon
Palin, John Henry
Watkins, F. C.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Perry, S. F.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lawrence, Susan
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Potts, John S.
West, F. R.


Lawson, John James
Price, M. P.
Westwood, Joseph


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Quibell, D. J. K.
White, H. G.


Leach, W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Raynes, W. R.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Lees, J.
Richards, R.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Leonard, W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lindley, Fred W.
Ritson, J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Logan, David Gilbert
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Longbottom. A. W.
Romerll, H. G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Longden, F.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Rowson, Guy
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Lunn, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Macdonald. Gordon (Ince)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Wise, E. F.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sanders, W. S.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


McElwee, A.
Sandham, E.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


McEntee, V. L.
Sawyer, G. F.



McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McKinlay, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


MacLaren, Andrew
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis



Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sherwood, G. H.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 19, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) is used for the purposes of allotment gardens under the Allotments Act, 1922, or allotments under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1926, or of any other allotments not exceeding one acre in extent.
In view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that this question has been already discussed, I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a few moments while I put the position of allotments as precisely as I can. There are 950,000 allotment holders, of which 500,000 are allotments owned by private persons and 450,000 by local authorities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is exempting allotments owned by local authorities and taxing those owned by private persons. I contend that there should be just the same treatment for allotments owned by private persons as for allotments owned by a local authority. There is no difference in the allotment holder; one man is not more meritorious than another. As the Bill stands allotments owned by private persons will be taxed to the full, but if the Government will accept the Amendment this grave injustice will be remedied. I ask Members of all parties and representing all kinds of constituencies to accept a proposal which will do away with a great
injustice and be a great benefit to the cause of allotments, which everyone will realise are to the advantage of the nation as a whole.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is rather a complex question which is raised by the Amendment, and, again, it is not as simple a question as may appear at first sight. The position as regards allotments is perhaps different in rural districts from what it is in urban districts. In rural districts, according to the opinion of the National Allotments Society, substantially this tax would have no effect at all, because in the case of rural allotments, in nearly all cases, the allotment value, that is to say the cultivation value as allotments, will probably be practically as high as any other land value which can be put upon the site. The problem, therefore, is essentially one of urban allotments. These allotments fall into two categories. First of all, there are those which are owned by allotment associations or bodies working on some sort of co-operative lines; and, secondly, those which are owned by private individuals and are let on short lease either to local authorities or to individual allotment holders.
The relief which is at present given under the Bill to the allotments is, of course, a very substantial one. In all cases of land used as allotments the land value will be reduced by the amount of the cultivation value, and, as the Committee are aware, probably the cultivation value as allotments is the highest cultivation value that there can be upon land. The aggregate rent per acre of allotments is generally in excess of anything that is charged for agricultural land otherwise. That high cultivation value will in every case be deductible from the land value before arriving at the sum on which the allotment land is to be taxed. Secondly, there is the land which is owned by allotment associations or by individual allotment holders. In these cases the owners will be able, under the Town Planning Bill, Clause 26, to guarantee continued user of that land for allotment purposes, in which case it would be impossible to put a higher value on the land than the cultivation value for allotment purposes; that is to say, from the point of view of taxation the value will disappear.
The last case, that of land which is let by owners to allotment associations or to local authorities for use as allotments, is the case which gives the most difficulty. That land remains, of course, in private ownership and, as members, of the Committee appreciate, in nearly all, or a large number of these cases, the allotment holders are subject to very short notice. Cases are constantly arising in which that land comes in for building purposes and the allotment holders are obliged to leave. In those cases, the land is only let for allotments while it is ripening for building purposes. There is no real security of tenure, and it is extremely questionable whether, in the general interest of allotment holders, it is not better to encourage local authorities to acquire land for allotments, rather than leave the allotment holders to the possibly precarious venture of carrying on allotments upon land which may at any moment be required for building purposes.
The majority of Members probably feel that it is desirable for allotment holders to have as secure a tenure as possible and for that end to be achieved by the acquisition of land by the allotments association or by the local authority on their behalf. It will, I am sure, be felt that short leases on allotment land are not to be encouraged. As regards these short leases, they would probably, in most cases, apply to land where anything over the cultivation value will necessarily be in the land value—that is to say, where there will be some tax. But the Committee will appreciate that the only effect of this tax in the form in which it is proposed to impose it, will be to throw more land of that type into use as allotments and not lees. Hon. Members opposite shake their heads. Let them visualise the position of anybody who owns land in the vicinity of a town and is waiting for it to ripen. Presumably, he wants to pay as small a tax as possible upon it, That is human nature. His way of achieving that end is to get the highest cultivation value possible upon that land. That is the only way in which he can get an effective reduction of land value. He can do it best by letting the land for allotments, thereby realising the allotment value of the land.
In our view, the effect of the tax will not be in the least disadvantageous to allotment holders. It will rather tend,
first, to get local authorities and allotment associations to acquire their own land permanently for allotments and thus give security of tenure, and, secondly, in so far as casual allotments, that is to say, allotments without security of tenure are required, this taxation will probably lead to a greater desire on the part of owners of land in the vicinity of towns to let the land for use as allotments in order to realise the higher cultivation value. We believe that the position of the allotment holder is covered, to the best possible purpose, by the Bill as it stands, and that any alteration would not be for the benefit of the allotment holder, but would only benefit possibly the landlord, in cases of short leases on land, when he is waiting for the land to ripen for development.

Captain RONALD HENDERSON: The Committee, I am sure, has admired the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has skated over some rather thin ice in dealing with this question. In an extremely clever and legal manner he raised two hypotheses, neither of which I imagine, had ever presented itself to the minds of the Committee. I venture to put to the Committee, the case which he ignored, of an allotments association which rents land from a private land-owner. The land-owner is liable to pay this tax to the full. The hon. and learned Gentleman offers, as a means of escape, the Town and Country Planning Bill, which is now before a Standing Committee. I would remind the Committee precisely what the provisions of that Bill are. A 100 per cent. betterment tax is placed on land, which accumulates at 5 per cent. Let me briefly state what is the position of the allotment holder under the Town and Country Planning Bill. I take an instance which will apply to nearly all Midland towns. Putting the price of land for building purposes at one shilling per square yard, it comes out roughly in the neighbourhood of £240 per acre. The cultivation value may be a high one. As has been calculated by many allotment associations we will assume that the land has a site value of £180. At 5 per cent. that would amount to a tax of about £9 per acre which the allotment holder will have to pay if he wishes to have the privilege of cultivating an allotment under this auspicious
Bill. Anyone who has any personal knowledge of allotments will realise that that is an absolutely prohibitive amount. The Committee need not speculate as to what the effect will be on allotments. Hon. Members need only look at countries where a site value tax is in force, and they will see that there is not a single allotment there. Allotments have been completely extinguished from those countries. Therefore the point before the Committee is whether it is or is not worth while maintaining allotments in this country, because, if this proposal goes through, it will deal an absolute death blow at allotments and allotment holders.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I have never listened to such an extraordinary explanation as that given by the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the position of members of allotment associations and town councils. Can he say where the funds are coming from for these associations and local councils to pay the burden which is imposed. The hon. and learned Gentleman drew a picture of people who wanted a high cultivation value and then talked about only getting short leases. It seems entirely contradictory. The whole intention of the Government under this Bill is to deprive working-class men of healthy employment. It will certainly tell against them when the Bill comes into force and working-men find owners will not allow them to rent the land for the purpose of cultivation and allotments.

Mr. WISE: I want to appeal to the Solicitor-General to reconsider this particular Amendment. I am not quite sure that I go the whole way that the Amendment does, because I think part of the case which has been referred to is already covered, but it is certain that those who are concerned with working allotment organisations are not so satisfied with the position as the hon. and learned Gentleman is. It really is a very important financial matter to them, and it seems very inconsistent, as they say, that at the time when the Government are pressing on with the establishment of allotments under two Bills, they should tax them in a third. I am quite sure that that is not the intention of the Government.
May I point out what seems to me to be a very remarkable and new method of legislation. We have often heard denunciations in this House of legislation by reference, but this is an entirely-new development. It is not really legislation by reference to existing Acts, but legislation by doubtful reference to Bills not yet passed by this House. I have put down an Amendment to a later proposed Amendment in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which will exempt a certain number of allotments. My Amendment covers another group, that is to say, allotments owned by a society which is registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. I am quite sure that there is no real intention of the Government to tax allotments or allotment holders, but I am equally sure from the speeches that have been made to-night that this matter is not clear. As I am not at all anxious

that the thing should be rushed, I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will take the opportunity of considering this point between now and the time when the matter may come up again, so that we may do what I am sure is the desire of all members, and avoid adding to the difficulties of allotment holders.

Earl of DALKEITH: The Solicitor-General has made out no case for imposing heavy additional taxation where land has been let at nominal rents for allotments, any more than where land has been let for cricket grounds at nominal rents. How does he justify this special discrimination against those owners of land who have utilised it for the benefit of the community?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 256.

Division No. 346.]
AYES.
[12 m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Albery, Irving James
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Hicking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Colman, N. C. D.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Aske, Sir Robert
Colville, Major D. J.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Cooper, A. Duff
Hammersley, S. S.


Astor, Viscountess
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hanbury, C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cranborne, Viscount
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Atkinson, C.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Harbord, A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hartington, Marquess of


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon. Totnes)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Balniel, Lord
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Beaumont, M. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Heare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Eevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hurd, Percy A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dawson, Sir Philip
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Boyce, Leslie
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Bracken, B.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Briscoe, Richard George
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lamb, Sir J. O.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berke, Newb'y)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Buchan, John
Everard, W. Lindsay
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Buchan Hepburn, P. G. T.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Ferguson, Sir John
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Fielden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Butler, R. A.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Long. Major Hon. Eric


Campbell, E. T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lymington, Viscount


Carver, Major W. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Ganzonl, Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Gower, Sir Robert
Meller, R. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N,)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Millar, J. D.


Chapman, Sir S.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Christle, J. A.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Ross, Ronald D.
Thompson, Luke


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Rothschild, J. de
Thomson, Sir F.


Muirhead, A. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Salmon, Major I.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


O'Connor, T. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Train, J.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Turton, Robert Hugh


O'Neill, Sir H.
Savery, S. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Peake, Captain Osbert
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Warrender, Sir Victor


Penny, Sir George
Skelton, A. N.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wells, Sydney R.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smithers, Waldron
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Somerset, Thomas
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Purbrick, R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Pybus, Percy John
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Withers, Sir John James


Ramsbotham, H.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Rathbone, Eleanor
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Womersley, W. J.


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Klngsley


Remer, John R.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)



Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Euan Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Egan, W. H.
Kelly, W. T.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Elmley, Viscount
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Foot, Isaac
Kinley, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Kirkwood, D.


Amnion, Charles George
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lang, Gordon


Angell, Sir Norman
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Arnott, John
Gibbins, Joseph
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Ayles, Walter
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gill, T. H.
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Barnes, Alfred John
Gillett, George M.
Lawrence, Susan


Barr, James
Glassey, A. E.
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Batey, Joseph
Gossling, A. G.
Lawson, John James


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gould, F.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Leach, W.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Benson, G.
Gray, Milner
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lees, J.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Leonard, W.


Bowen, J. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lindley, Fred W.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Groves, Thomas E.
Logan, David Gilbert


Brockway, A. Fenner
Grundy, Thomas W.
Longbottom, A. W.


Bromfield, William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Longden, F.


Bromley, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Brooke, W.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lunn, William


Brothers, M.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
McElwee, A.


Buchanan, G.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
McEntee, V. L.


Burgess, F. G.
Harris, Percy A.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
McKinlay, A.


Cape, Thomas
Haycock, A. W.
MacLaren, Andrew


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hayday, Arthur
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Charleton, H. C.
Hayes, John Henry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Chater, Daniel
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Clarke, J. S.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
McShane, John James


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Herriotts, J.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Cove, William G.
Hicks, Ernest George
Manning, E. L.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mansfield, W.


Daggar, George
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Marcus, M.


Dallas, George
Hoffman, P. C.
Markham, S. F.


Dalton, Hugh
Hollins, A.
Marley, J.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hopkin, Daniel
Marshall, Fred


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mathers, George


Day, Harry
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Matters, L. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Maxton, James


Devlin, Joseph
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Messer, Fred


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Middleton, G.


Duncan, Charles
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Mills, J. E.


Ede, James Chuter
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Milner, Major J.


Edge, Sir William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Montague, Frederick


Edmunds, J. E.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.




Morley, Ralph
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Tout, W. J.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sanders, W. S.
Townend, A. E.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sandham, E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Mort, D. L.
Sawyer, G. F.
Vaughan, David


Muff, G.
Scurr, John
Viant, S. P.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Walker, J.


Murnin, Hugh
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wallace, H. W.


Naylor, T. E.
Sherwood, G. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Shield, George William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Oldfield, J. R.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shillaker, J. F.
Wellock, Wiltred


Owen, Major G- (Carnarvon)
Shinwell, E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Owen, K. F. (Hereford)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Palin, John Henry
Simmons, C. J.
West, F. R.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Westwood, Joseph


Perry, S. F.
Sinkinson, George
White, H. G.


Puthick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sitch, Charles H.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Potts, John S.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Price, M. P.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Raynes, W. R.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrilngton)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Richards, R.
Sorensen, R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Ritson, J.
Strauss, G. R.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Sullivan, J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Romerll, H. G.
Sutton, J. E.



Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rowson, Guy
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


Suiter, Dr. Alfred
Thurtle, Ernest



Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Tinker, John Joseph

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Committee report Progress: to sit again To-morrow.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [ADVANCES AND PAYMENTS].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient—

(a) to raise to one hundred and fifteen million pounds the limit on the amount of the advances to be made by the Treasury to the Unemployment Fund under Section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, as amended by subsequent enactments, which may be outstanding during the deficiency period; and
(b) to provide that the period of twelve months mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927 (which, as extended by subsequent enactments, is now a period of forty-two months), shall be further extended to forty-eight months; and
(c) to authorise the payment into the Unemployment Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) such amounts as may be determined by the Minister of Labour, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to be approximately equivalent to the aggregate amount of the sums which from time to time become payable by way of benefit under Sub-section (2) of the said Section fourteen by virtue of the further extension as aforesaid of the said period; and
398
(ii) an amount approximately equivalent to the expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour in administering the benefits which become payable as aforesaid."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain WATERHOUSE: The House is used by now to- the methods of the present Government, but it is extraordinary that we should be asked to vote, on the Report stage, a matter of £30,000,000 without having a word said from the Treasury Bench. Thirty million pounds may not seem much to hon. Members opposite, but it is just a quarter of our total national expenditure in 1906, and here we are asked to vote this sum without either the Minister of Labour or the Chancellor of the Exchequer being present. During the whole of the Debate on this Resolution the Lord Privy Seal, who, I understand, is primarily responsible for looking after the interests of the unemployed in this country, has not been present, and we have had no word of explanation from any competent Minister who was dealing with the thing from the angle of finding jobs for the unemployed.
The right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour read us a long discourse and delivered herself of many pieces of information on Monday, but she absents herself altogether this evening. When
this matter was debated on Monday we constantly heard from the other side, especially from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who has not taken the trouble to take his place here on this occasion, the question, "What do you propose to do?" Our policy is perfectly clear in the matter of social insurance. We made it clear when we were in office with our widows' and old age pensions proposals. Our policy is one of helping people to help themselves—— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is significant and what one would expect that a remark of that sort should be met by the jeers of hon. Members opposite. They do not believe in helping oneself to anything but the public funds, and in that particular art they are masters. With the help of their allies below the Gangway here, they have every intention of enjoying the shower of gold that is now falling upon them. Our policy is one to help the people to help themselves, and it is the very opposite of the policy of 9d. for 4d., which was put forward by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and would no doubt be supported to-day by his colleague, the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel).
I am glad that the Minister of Labour is now in her place, because I want to remind her of the expedient which she debated five years ago when she sat on a Committee which was examining this whole question, and I want to contrast what she endorsed in the report of that body with what she is doing now. In that report one finds several rather remarkable declarations of opinion. The first is this:
Neither a surplus nor a deficit should reach unwieldy proportions. We recommend that there be an actuarial inquiry into the position of the fund every five years.
It so happens that this Committee has sat in the fifth year after the Blancsburgh report:
As the result of such inquiry any adjustments of contributions or benefits, or both, on the lines of the scheme which may appear necessary can be made.
That is what the right hon. Lady thought in 1926 and 1927. That is what she put her name to. Now she says, "We can do nothing. We will take no steps. The fund may be
insolvent. It is a pity, but we will take no steps until we have had further consultation and further reports on the whole question" She goes on to say in the Report:
But all this shows how necessary it is that the fund shall be self-contained in fact and so designed as to convince everyone that the contributions to it really provide the benefits which it offers. Actuarial soundness is, we believe, expected and desired by all parties and we claim it for our proposal. We may again remark that, while we desire the benefits to be adequate, we should have hesitated to recommend even those proposed had they required contributions substantially in excess of those suggested.
What events have taken place since 1926 to cause this complete turn on the right hon. Lady's part? There have been several. The first is that, when the report was issued, she got a thoroughly bad mark. She was hauled over the coals. She was castigated. How could a good Socialist put her name to such a report? Exactly the same thing happened in rather a different atmosphere. She was in power when this last report was issued. The Trade Union Congress, that power behind the throne, issued its veto. We had all been led to expect that the Government would pay a great deal of attention to the advice and the orders of the Trade Union Congress. After all, the people who pay the piper have some right to call the tune. But we did not expect that the Government would take their orders as they came and not even remonstrate with the body that was trying to divert them from the policy which they themselves had adumbrated. I have referred to the interesting address that the right hon. Lady gave the House and it is typical of her and her party that she should adopt a Micawber-like attitude. "I am confident that the tide will turn." It might be relevant to ask what steps they have taken to find out if the tide is going to turn, or if they have taken any measures to try to make the tide turn. It may be that a tide has turned or is turning. The figures of the bye-election which have come over the machine this evening give us good grounds for that opinion.
She referred at very great length to the report of some foreign economist, and said, speaking of foreigners as a whole, that they may well pause before they attack the financial integrity and the un-
daunted character of the British people. I do not propose to dispute the second part of her statement. I believe that the character of the British people, in spite of the Government, is still undaunted, and that we shall survive all that they may do to us. But what about attacking our financial integrity, when we are here discussing a Budget which was unbalanced before the Finance Bill was read a Second time, and when we are making a financial arrangement, not for a sinking fund, but actually for a deficit? This iron Chancellor of ours, who had himself heralded throughout the Press of Europe, has turned into something much less implacable than iron. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was challenged by my right hon. Friend upon the experts' evidence. What did he say? He said that he did not repudiate it. He had seen it, but was not in a position to alter the evidence. How very annoying for him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to alter the evidence to be put before the Committee! If only that evidence had been coming from one of the other organisations, if only it had been coming from a loyal trade union, how different would have been the position! There would have been no question then of not altering the evidence which was to be presented. Finally, he said that the evidence was in no wise his, because it was the evidence of an expert. That is not an uninteresting remark to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country.
The right hon. Lady in her speech said that she would agree to no proposals which would put further burdens upon industry. But upon what are we engaged, and upon what have we been engaged day after day other than putting further burdens upon industry. She said she could not think of increasing the employers' contribution. Has she made an easy calculation in order to see what is the amount of the contribution? An employer employing 1,000 operatives would be asked to contribute £200 a year. Has she calculated or had calculated for her, what the Land Tax will amount to on a factory employing 1,000 people? The burden of which we relieved the industrialists by defeating the Education Bill is far greater than the burden which she declines with horror to inflict upon industrialists to-day. If she thinks this burden is not going to fall on industry,
where does she imagine these £30,000,000 are going to come from? Is it to come from the sky? What sources of wealth have we in this country except the industry of the country? [Interruption.] Eventually it is from industry that this money has to be found, whether it is borrowed or raised by taxation. Every £1,000,000 she raises makes it so much harder for industrialists to borrow their thousands to carry on their industries.
The right hon. Lady said she was going to tackle this problem at once; that there must be no delay; that we must get straight on with the job. She said she hoped to pass this necessary Measure—a Measure on which she pretends this vote is dependant—during this Session. I understand this Session is going on until November. Does she mean she may not get this Bill until November? She takes six weeks to set up the Commission, and the Commission is to collaborate with her officials. They have to take evidence and make recommendations, and she has to take decisions on them. Where will we be when we get them? We will not be where we are; we cannot stop still. If we could stop where we are, we might be miserable, but we would not be desperate. The position is getting worse every day and every hour. We on this side protest most sincerely against this unwarranted delay. There is going to be six months' delay before these changes are put into operation. Nine months of this financial year may well pass before we get any decrease in the present rate of expenditure. The House and the country are aware of that. Everybody is aware of it except the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). He cannot afford to be aware of it. The whole plan is one gigantic hoax. It is possible to humbug the hon. Members opposite, because they do not object; it is possible to humbug some hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House, because they like it, but it is impossible to humbug the country, and it is wrong and immoral to humbug the unemployed. The right hon. Lady and her friends went to the country and obtained their mandates as friends of the people and the working man, but they are going down to posterity as the friends of the dole, the friends of idleness, and the enemies of all that is best in this country.

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: I want to make an emphatic protest against being at this late hour confronted with financial questions like this and the Government expecting them to go through without any discussion whatever. We have been considering for two or three weeks the details of the Finance Bill, to which there has been tacked on a Land Value Bill that might well have been left out. We have been monopolising the time of this House until late every night for the past two weeks, and now at this time we are asked to pass a Resolution which embodies no less a sum than £25,000,000. I think that this House should enter its most emphatic protest at such proceedings. I do not think the Government quite realise the position they have reached in the eyes of the general electorate of the country. The other week it was my privilege to preside over a meeting of a branch of the National Conservative League. [Interruption.] It won Sunderland for the Conservative cause. When the details of the year's working came to be presented by the treasurer, he said: "Mr. Chairman, I am glad to report a good year We have to report a balance of £2,000,000." He then paused and said: "I mean £2, but we have got so used to talk in millions now that we do not know whether it is pounds or millions." [Interruption.]
We are spending money in this House without any adequate consideration of it. As has been pointed out by the previous speaker, the amount is £25,000,000, and in the old days we would have spent a whole lot of time considering it. We are now asked in a few minutes to pass through the House, without consideration, this vast sum. We should protest with all the power that we can.
I would like to enter a second protest, because we are spending this money without adequately considering why we are spending it. We have been considering during the past day or two the question of unemployment insurance. We are not going to arrive at a solution by considering the question of whether we are to reduce unemployment benefit or increase the contributions. The truth is that until we get the figures of unemployment down to a workable condition this fund will never be redeemed from the position in which it is now. I have given considerable time, patience, and thought to
every one of the Unemployment Insurance Bills passing through this House since 1922. I think it was in 1924 that the present Secretary of State for War told us that until the figures got down to 800,000 there would be no redemption for the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The Minister of Labour said the day before yesterday that until the figures got down to 750,000 there would be no redemption for the fund. Not a word has been said regarding the redemption of the situation in which we find ourselves. We on this side of the House feel the impact of this very seriously. [Interruption.]
I want to draw the attention of the House to the pronouncement of no less an authority than Sir William Beveridge, in which he told the country very plainly—[Interruption]. During the period from 1921 to 1926 the average of unemployment was 13½ per cent., and we then carried a permanent 8½ per cent. above our pre-War figures. It has been increased now to 20.9 per cent. No one in this House can look at these figures without very serious consideration, especially in view of the fact that I have been devoting my attention for weeks and months to try and find a comparative position between this country and our competitors in Europe and elsewhere. Taking into consideration the position that has arisen since 1929, the truth is that further you get in your comparative figures there is no other competitor of ours that can show such a chronic state of unemployment. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite jeer. I take this opportunity of challenging them on the point. Take the position of France. Today, according to the international figures given by the Ministry of Labour, she carries something like 77,000 people on the register. That is one-thirtieth of what we are carrying with the same population. In March she was only carrying 4.3 per cent. [Interruption.] The truth is that, however you compare it, this country is in a dire state. We have a two-fold problem. There is the problem of the chronic and permanent unemployment which we have carried since 1921, and there is the excess of 1,500,000 on top of that. When the world depression passes away, as surely it must pass away, this country will be found in a worse relative position than any other
country. I protest against the procedure that has been adopted to-night and the inadequate time that has been left for the voting of this huge sum of money. The seriousness of the position——

HON. MEMBERS: Cheer up.

Mr. THOMPSON: I have cheered up often enough, but I cannot stand by and see nearly every shipyard in my constituency, and on the Tyne as well, closed without attempting to make some substantial contribution to the solution of the problem. Therefore, I enter my protest against the action of the Government.

Major KINDERSLEY: I wish to add my protest to that uttered by the hon. Member who has just spoken against the procedure of this House in voting £25,000,000 at this hour of the night without adequate discussion. The position of this country is, financially, becoming desperate. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, but if they will only wait a few months they will not laugh. The amount we are voting to-night is £5,000,000 more than would be saved by the conversion of the £2,000,000,000 of 5 per cent. War Loan from a 5 per cent. to a 4 per cent. basis. The saving would be £20,000,000. I will ask the right hon. Lady, the Minister of Labour, this. She said that on no account would the Government be willing to lower the standard of living—I am interpreting her words, and I think she will agree that they are right—of the unemployed. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite cheer. I can tell them this, the hon. Lady knows—the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) knows it, the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir Herbert Samuel) knows it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows it—that by doing this and going on adding to this debt on the Insurance Fund they are doing the thing which must inevitably end in lowering the standard of living of every single man, woman and child in this country, because they are destroying the national credit. If you destroy the national credit, what happens to your pound sterling? The cost of living will go up. These are facts which the Front Bench opposite, the Front Bench of the Liberal party, and the Front Bench of the Conservative party know perfectly well. It is a perfect scandal that we should go to bed
to-night, having voted £25,000,000 more for this Insurance Fund, without any attempt being made to deal with the situation. We are doing a disservice to the country. We are betraying the masses of the people——[Interruption.]

Mr. J. JONES: I would only like some of our friends opposite who got up with such self-assurance to lecture us on economics and finance to look at themselves in the glass sometimes in order to understand their ignorance. We hear a lot of talk about the financial ruin of this country, and yet we know, although supposedly the country is on the basis of bankruptcy from the standpoint of our political opponents, that, as a matter of fact, the country was never richer than it is at the present moment. [Interruption.] I repeat—as a matter of fact, never richer. That is demonstrated by your returns for Income Tax. You do not tell the truth if you can help it. We find every year on the Income Tax returns given by yourselves, that your income has increased because of the development of the national wealth. Now we are asking for £25,000,000, and what do we discover? We find out that we have 2,500,000 unemployed poor. How many are rich unemployed? About 560,000, who return themselves as being men and women of independent means, and they know as well as we do that there is no such person. The men or women who do not work for what they get have to be kept by someone else who does work.
It is because unemployment benefit is the best insurance against revolution that you have it. You did not dare make these speeches in 1918; you did not dare deliver them then on public platforms. If you had done, they would have sent you to sleep with the dope in the rifles that they brought home with them. But now after years have passed and the people have forgotten you talk about the dole and you insult the people who saved you from being beaten in the War. The working man in the factory and the man at the front saved you, and now you have nothing but insults for them. We spend £100,000,000 to keep the poor unemployed, but what are the rich unemployed getting—£1,260,000,000. That is what they return to those who do not work. We are trying to save you from yourselves. I
am not singling out any one. I am loyal to the Constitution of this country. I wish I could be as disloyal as the people opposite.
I resent these perpetual insults against the class to which I belong. They have rendered service and they would take work if they had a chance. When you find work with decent conditions for people and they do not take it, they should be struck off the list. I was a member of a board of guardians, and I knew the wrong ones and I knew the right ones. The wrong ones we all knew in our own localities and also the right ones, and we did our best for them. I would like to ask hon. Members opposite how they would like to keep a wife and three children on 32s. a week and pay 10s. a week rent You talk about men on the dole—why you have been getting it all your lives. We are willing to meet you—we who sit on the back benches—even in your own constituencies and ram the lies down your throats that you have been saying against the unemployed. Why should we stand it all the time? This money is necessary: it is an insurance against revolution. What is your alternative? Do you want to get people off the Insurance Fund and send them to the public assistance committees? If you do that, you are sending the people back to the districts which have been most badly hit. The poor have to keep the poor again.
What is your programme? Failing the Labour party programme—work or maintenance—what do you propose? A tariff—sticking plaster on wooden legs. So far as we are concerned, we are going to support the Government as far as they go. We would like them to go further. We would like to see a decent standard of maintenance. Our friends opposite wish to keep the unemployed down. Starve them, and they will be ready to grasp at any job. They think that they will force the men out of work to go against the men who are in work, and they will then reduce wage costs. We know that things would be a lot worse if hon. Members opposite were in. We can go into the constituencies with our plans prepared and our flags flying when the time comes. You might win a Pyrrhic victory at one or two elections, but, as sure as night follows day, the workers of this country will know where
they are, and by their power they will wipe the system you people opposite represent out of existence.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): I am sure the House will not think for a moment that the Government meant any discourtesy in not rising immediately this Debate began, but the fact of the matter is, as the House knows, that a whole day was given to the discussion of this matter yesterday. I think, although there was an Amendment to reduce the principal amount which was asked for, there was agreement on all sides of the House that, at any rate, it was necessary to increase the borrowing powers in order that those who are unemployed should receive their benefit in the ordinary way in the first week in July. If these borrowing powers are not increased, there can be no money for the unemployed in the first week of July. No one in this House would contemplate a situation of that kind for a moment, not even my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson). His is one of the districts which needs this money more than many others in the country. There will be, however, another whole day given this week to this matter, and I am sure the House will agree that, considering the time given yesterday and the day that will be given on Friday, it is scarcely necessary to enter into a prolonged Debate on the matter now. I would like to ask the House if it is possible to come to a decision? It would certainly be to the general advantage, in view of the Debate which has already taken place, for the House to come to a decision now, and I therefore beg the House to come to a decision at once.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: At one o'clock in the morning we are asked to vote the sum of £25,000,000. In my office this afternoon I opened a letter from a working man enclosing a pawnticket for a shirt for four shillings. He said that that four shillings was the only thing standing between him, his wife and family and absolute starvation. Yet at one o'clock in the morning we are asked to vote £25,000,000. I wish to enter the strongest possible protest against the scandal of the proceedings of the Labour Government, who, by their own action, have created the unemployment which exists in this country to-day.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 173.

Division No. 347.]
AYES.
[1.1 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Herrlotts, J.
Pathick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hicks, Ernest George
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Potts, John S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillisbro')
Hoffman, P. C.
Price, M. P.


Alpass, J. H.
Hollins, A
Pybus, Percy John


Amnion, Charles George
Hudson, James H. (Huddertfield)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Angell, Sir Norman
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Arnott, John
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Raynes, W. R.


Ayles, Walter
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Richards, R.


Barnes, Alfred John
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barr, James
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ritson, J.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Romerll, H. G.


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Rowson, Guy


Bondfleld, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Kinley, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bowen, J. W.
Kirkwood, D.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sanders, W. S.


Brockway, A. Fanner
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Sandham, E.


Bromfield, William
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sawyer, G. F.


Brooke, W.
Lawrence, Susan
Scurr, John


Brothers, M.
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Lawson, John James
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Sherwood, G. H.


Buchanan, G.
Leach, W.
Shield, George William


Burgess, F. G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shillaker, J. F.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lees, J.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Charleton, H. C.
Leonard, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Chater, Daniel
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sinkinson, George


Clarke, J. S.
Lindley, Fred W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Cluse, W. S.
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Longden, F.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cove, William G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lunn, William
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Dagger, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Dallas, George
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sorensen, R.


Dalton, Hugh
McElwee, A.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
McEntee, V. L.
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Strauss, G. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McKinlay, A.
Sullivan, J.


Duncan, Charles
MacLaren, Andrew
Sutton, J. E.


Ede, James Chuter
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Edge, Sir William
McShane, John James
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Edmunds, J. E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Tout, W. J.


Egan, W. H.
Manning, E. L.
Townend, A. E.


Foot, Isaac
Mansfield, W.
Vaughan, David


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marcus, M.
Viant, S. P.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Markham, S. F.
Walker, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Marshall, Fred
Wallace, H. W.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Mathers, George
Watkins, F. C.


Gill, T. H.
Matters, L. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Glassey, A. E.
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gossling, A. G.
Messer, Fred
Wellock, Wilfred


Gould, F.
Middteton, G.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mills, J. E.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Gray, Milner
Milner, Major J.
West, F. R.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Montague, Frederick
Westwood, Joseph


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
White, H. G.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morley, Ralph
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mort, D. L.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Muff, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Murnin, Hugh
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Harris, Percy A.
Oldfield, J. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Haycock, A. W.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wise, E. F.


Hayday, Arthur
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Palin, John Henry
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Paling, Wilfrid



Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
O'Connor, T. J.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Albery, Irving James
Ferguson, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Atkinson, C.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Remer, John R.


Balniel, Lord
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Beaumont, M. W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gower, Sir Robert
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ross, Ronald D.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Salmon, Major I.


Boyce, Leslie
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bracken, B.
Halt, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hanbury, C.
Savery, S. S.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Skelton, A. N.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smithers, Waldron


Butler, R. A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Somerset, Thomas


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Campbell, E. T.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hurd, Percy A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Chamberlain Rt. Hn Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Naira)


Christle, J. A.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colman, N. C. D.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Train, J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cooper, A. Duff
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cranborne, Viscount
Lymington, Viscount
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, Sydney R.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Marjoribanks, Edward
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Meller, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)



Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Muirhead, A. J.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
George Penny.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Miss Bondfield, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence and Mr. Lawson.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NO. 4) BILL,

"to raise to one hundred and fifteen million pounds the limit on the amount of the advances by the Treasury to the Unemployment Fund which may be outstanding during the deficiency period; to amend Subsection (2) of Section fourteen of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, by further extending to forty-eight months the period of twelve months therein mentioned; and to make provision for certain other matter in connection with the extension aforesaid."

presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 176.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve Minutes after One o'Clock.